Posts by EndofMysteries

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

EndofMysteries

So, anyway, there is no requirement of science to test every possible idea. A person may choose to go that route, but it is certainly not part of the scientific method.

So Viviane, in Turkey there are these ancient ruins that have been uncovered, the Gobekli Tepe. Now why is it people are assuming that humans made them? Why aren't scientists coming up with theories on how natural processes made it? A bunch of earthquakes and things could have caused the stones to get carved up, and then landshift and earthquakes cause them to get filled up and buried, etc.

Anyway, how life first began, that is life on this planet, looking into intelligent life vs random as part of all possibilities then your claim that then one must look at a rhino made of pigs is a ridiculous comparison. One would consider the possiblity where any sort of intelligent life is responsible for life on this planet, whether biological alien scientists, God, a rhino of pigs, etc. Before specifics of how many broad possibilities for how life began. 1. Random from chemicals and conditions of 3.5 billion years ago and it all began on this planet. 2. Remnants from another planet/world/solar system/galaxy (water) got to this planet and started the cycle. 3. Biological intelligent life started it. 4. Life that is not biological or beyond what we know began it. etc.etc.

Anyway the scientific process doesn't mean that all hypothesis that life originates on this planet and by random chance and that is the only possibility that is considered and investigated. If that is what you believe then your as close minded as you were when you were a JW.

30

How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

by EndofMysteries in

i'll add many things in the bible i don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books.

now to make sure i'm reading as closely to what is written in genesis, i look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it.

http://www.scripture4all.org/onlineinterlinear/otpdf/gen1.pdf.

EndofMysteries

god was always in existence what was he doing before he created the universe ?
This ideology that a god created things on set time scale as a day or a thousands years equal to one day, is quite laughable.
I guess he did that because he foreknew that one day humans would be eventually writing about what he was doing ???
If that is also so, then he foreknew that the humans he was going to create were going to eventually sin and write the genesis account. .......ummmm ???
Got to admit that's one smart god !

This is sort of an example of where I think science only drops the ball. Not sure if the answer is a reason to dismiss that this kind of knowledge seems quite advanced for somebody in a desert 2500+ years ago.

We have 2 tools to learn or attempt to discover our origins, science and archaeology. And it's funny that scientists are so keen to look for life and other planets but ignore and look into if other life has visited us in the past.

If science is only looking at life originating here or the first intelligent life being humans, then if somehow the answer was that we originate from the destruction of another world, or brought or made from other life, if we were an experiment, etc.

If the knowledge and accomplishments of ancients is shown to be very advanced or knowing things they couldn't have known then, writing it off as not worth investigating because they believe in magic. If you could time travel, you may be written about as being a god if you brought and used some technology today.

Sodom and Gommorah - nuclear blast Materializing - teleporting Releasing a plague - biological warfare The vessel coming out of the sky unloading all sorts of animals on Earth in the vision of Peter - spaceship

The point is the true answers may or may not be found with investigating what the ancients knew, believed, and taught, but ignoring it all if they do have clues and what we are looking for is way different from the reality, then we will never know if we skip the paths that would have led to the answers.

30

How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

by EndofMysteries in

i'll add many things in the bible i don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books.

now to make sure i'm reading as closely to what is written in genesis, i look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it.

http://www.scripture4all.org/onlineinterlinear/otpdf/gen1.pdf.

EndofMysteries

Wrong again: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

Let the LAND produce seed bearing plants. It's done through seeds, but that is confirmed in Genesis 2:5 which you didn't read I guess. which says, "And every plant of thefield before it was in theearth, and every herb of thefield before it grew: for theLORD God had not causedit to rain upon the earth"

49

Elders in Spain Steal Millions from Congregation

by cappytan in

these men are appointed by holy spirit,.

here is the source: http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/01/la-fiscalia-imputa-una-estafa-de-mas-de-170-millones-de-euros-a-una-congregacion-de-testigos-de-jeho-65161.php.

basically, if you don't know spanish, it boils down to this: (my personal editorial of what i've read).

EndofMysteries

Something is wrong, if all 1300 donated over 10 years, that's like 10,000 per person per year. Unless they had a lot of wills, life insurance policies, etc, they collected on.

30

How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

by EndofMysteries in

i'll add many things in the bible i don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books.

now to make sure i'm reading as closely to what is written in genesis, i look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it.

http://www.scripture4all.org/onlineinterlinear/otpdf/gen1.pdf.

EndofMysteries

Unless I read and interpret things differently, it seems to have strong points. I'll add many things in the bible I don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books. Genesis however, does seem to have strong points.

Now to make sure I'm reading as closely to what is written in Genesis, I look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf

So here is why I think Genesis has some strong points.

Genesis 1:1 states how the earth was vacany and chaos and is generally translated to being without form and void. The wording of it to me describes the birth of a planet, a cloud of dust.

Now the next part many claim proves it's all crap because it says light and darkness came and he made day and night BEFORE the sun and moon. That is because you aren't reading what it says. It doesn't claim the light is from the sun and that day and night are the result of the sun. (it claims the opposite later on, that the sun and moon are to SHOW or mark when it's day and night).

But back to the topic, the heavens and earth. What light is can be debated, if it's light from the other stars then speed of light can mean by this point the light has reached earth.

Next it says all the waters are moved to one place and dry land appears. To me that wording seems to imply one landmass. And it appears that at one point all of Earth's dry land was in one big landmass.

Next is says the seeds for plants are created, not full grown plants out of nowhere but seeds. This is confirmed in Gen 2:5 that explicitly states that all plants originated by seeds. The ground was seeded. I'll also remind that Genesis was NOT written in chapters and verses, but one big letter. Chapters and verses were inserted much later on. At Genesis chap 2:3 ends what was discussed starting in Gen 1:1, in Gen 2:4 it's a new topic, "The generations of the heaven and the earth", so when vs 4 says no plants yet, then vs 5 is talking about man, that's not saying that in the day God made seeds he also made man. (I've seen that mentioned and those people are assuming what is NOT stated).

Back to Genesis, after the seeds are made, then the sun comes. (no animals or water life yet because it would have been impossible. It's interesting how separated plants and then life is. It makes sense because before any plants there was no oxygen. Also the seeds needed sunlight, photosynthesis, so during this period of time the atmosphere and water is getting pumped with oxygen.

It's also interesting that recent studies have shown that some water on the Earth is OLDER than the sun. http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/09/earths-water-is-older-than-the-sun Anyway after plants and sunlight THEN the first life mentioned is aquatic. Then birds and mammals.

Then man is last. Science has shown man was a late development.

Now if you ignore that a creator is responsible for everything in Genesis, with the description and order of things, what is wrong about it?

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

EndofMysteries

This is the problem - the "simple" explanation actually contains more complexity and moving parts ... to make fire we now need spaces travel to be invented instead of someone just having a good idea one day.
It all seems to be a desperate attempt to deny any scientific explanation and simply cling to the idea that involves there being a god. Specifically, the god that the proponent of the explanation happens to believe in. Yeah, not one of those other fake gods. Splittahs!!
I don't think the "theist method" is as credible as the "scientific method"

I am not saying that either either scientific OR theist. Unless one proves to be absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt indisputable, then BOTH should be considered. Just because it's possible we were created whether a spirit supernatural God or another biological advanced life form doesn't mean you stop everything and that's the answer. On the other end of the spectrum, it shouldn't be that all scientific research and study must assume we appeared out of nowhere, that may result in not doing research and study that could answer questions if we are the product of another life. Both are open, both should be on the table.

11

What if "IT" was all just a dream?

by titch in

i'm not really sure as to what category that i should put this into, so i'll just try, and put it here.

this is based upon a posting that i saw and read on facebook recently.

and, the question is: what if life---as you know it---was just one big dream?

EndofMysteries

I believe this can be entirely possible but in many other fashions.

For one, when you dream at night, you don't know you are dreaming. Unless you become lucid, you can be in a crazy world that defies rationality and logic and you think it's completely normal.

For those who believe in the eternal soul, if beings of spirit or energy, life like this could be almost like a game, you don't remember like in a dream, live is to experience the universe, when you die you wake up in a sense and remember just like when waking up from a dream, then pick another life, etc.

Or a very advanced virtual reality.

I agree with OTWO though.

38

What is the main reason the Watchtower Society baptize their children so young?

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

jesus was thirty was he was baptized.

today, you hear of young children getting baptized as young as 10 years old.

the parents, family and congregation think it's a wonderful idea that someone dedicates their life to jehovah at such a young age.

EndofMysteries

They do it because the rules are they don't have to shun if they were never baptized, and they know many are waking up younger and want them baptized before they can really think and know what's going on and find out about the lies so when they inevitably do, then they can make their parents shun them and not risk them learning TTATT.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

EndofMysteries

My point is that if scientifically ALL possibilities must be looked at. Saying that if we were made from an alien race doesn't answer where life came from, the fact also stands that if we were made from an alien race, then there is no skipping past them to discover the origin of any and all life. If we made robots or created some life form, then they couldn't discover the origin of all life without knowing about us and our origins, etc.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

EndofMysteries

So your explanation of how life began is that some life put it there?

Let me explain it another way. Not how 'any' life began but how 'our' life began. Let's say we humans create a life, using computers, etc. The answer of how life began for THEM would be different then us. So if life on this planet came from other life, it COULD have, it doesn't answer how THEIR life came to be, but it would answer how our life came to be. We would have no way of knowing how their life came to be without direct answers, interaction, study, etc of them.