[quote]ephrem wrote:
…extra details on the find in S.A…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8609192.stm[/quote]
Very interesting article. Good Find.
Thanks! That gives a much clearer account.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
why is it that people will discount what they can see with there own eyes, but believe fully in something no one has ever seen.[/quote]
Indeed.[/quote]
I wonder what horsepuss meant by that quote?
Maybe the apostles saw and interacted with God, so atheist discount that, but yet fully beleive in human life on other planets yet have never seen them with their own eyes?
…who of you have actually seen God?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…who of you have actually seen God?[/quote]
…who of you have actually seen aliens from another planet?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…who of you have actually seen God?[/quote]
I have.
Every time I experience love. Fully and completely without fear.
Fear that I should be found deficient because He is not present.
Which is easier/less frightening:
To believe we have evolved or to admit the thing created has been abandoned by the Creator?
Fact: God is absent from the world.
Conclusion: We must have evolved.
Where is this really stemming from?
If the scientist starts the solution and leaves the room without attending to its development, does that mean there was no scientist?
We have evolved - in the absence of love.
Does that mean God does not exist just because he is not present?
What does it mean to you and your self-esteem and your courage?
I may not know where we started ( I wasn’t there but I am here.)
But I do know where you and I are coming from.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…who of you have actually seen God?[/quote]
I have.
Every time I experience love. Fully and completely without fear.
Fear that I should be found deficient because He is not present.
Which is easier/less frightening:
To believe we have evolved or to admit the thing created has been abandoned by the Creator?
Fact: God is absent from the world.
Conclusion: We must have evolved.
Where is this really stemming from?
If the scientist starts the solution and leaves the room without attending to its development, does that mean there was no scientist?
We have evolved - in the absence of love.
Does that mean God does not exist just because he is not present?
What does it mean to you and your self-esteem and your courage?
I may not know where we started ( I wasn’t there but I am here.)
But I do know where you and I are coming from.
[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of Bozo, it’s good to see you back from your “banishment.” How was it on the Island of St. Helena?[/quote]
to be back
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
why is it that people will discount what they can see with there own eyes, but believe fully in something no one has ever seen.[/quote]
Indeed.[/quote]
I wonder what horsepuss meant by that quote?
Maybe the apostles saw and interacted with God, so atheist discount that, but yet fully beleive in human life on other planets yet have never seen them with their own eyes?[/quote]
What you are saying is no different than believers believing god.I beleive there is life on other planets, so.
Also im pretty sure that nowhere does it say anything about the apostles seeing and interacting with god.With the execption of maybe Moses.
And Push, nice reference about seeing the wind, but I can feel the wind and I have seen the wind pick up dust and houses.but still funny.
Would proof of life on other planets somehow mean that God doesnt exist, I dont think so.It is believed that under the thick ice on Europa there may be an ocean full of life, for which I agree.But while I am a non believer I still dont think that this type of discovery would mean that there cant be a God.
My point was that you can go into any natural history museum anywhere in the world and see proof of evolution with your own eyes.Yet some people still believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago and god created Adam out of clay and Eve out of Adams ribs.And no one has ever seen god and aside from the shroud turin there is no proof Jesus ever even existed.
Now im not saying Jesus didnt exist because I think he did, just pointing out the irony in some peoples beliefs.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…who of you have actually seen God?[/quote]
I have.
Every time I experience love. Fully and completely without fear.
Fear that I should be found deficient because He is not present.
Which is easier/less frightening:
To believe we have evolved or to admit the thing created has been abandoned by the Creator?
Fact: God is absent from the world.
Conclusion: We must have evolved.
Where is this really stemming from?
If the scientist starts the solution and leaves the room without attending to its development, does that mean there was no scientist?
We have evolved - in the absence of love.
Does that mean God does not exist just because he is not present?
What does it mean to you and your self-esteem and your courage?
I may not know where we started ( I wasn’t there but I am here.)
But I do know where you and I are coming from.
[/quote]
Check into Bellevue.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
aside from the shroud turin there is no proof Jesus ever even existed.
[/quote]
I’ve seen it with my own eyes: it’s quite disappointing.
Also carbon dating put it at approximately 650 years old.
William Meacham, The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology, Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983.
There are more references to be found on google scholar.
Thats just an aside, I wish to avoid this argument, if Bill Roberts posts can’t persuade, I don’t know what the hell can.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
aside from the shroud turin there is no proof Jesus ever even existed.
[/quote]
I’ve seen it with my own eyes: it’s quite disappointing.
Also carbon dating put it at approximately 650 years old.
William Meacham, The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology, Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983.
There are more references to be found on google scholar.
Thats just an aside, I wish to avoid this argument, if Bill Roberts posts can’t persuade, I don’t know what the hell can.[/quote]
It was tested independently by three different institutions who all placed it around the same period (1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence). Basically, outside of a fabricated story book, there is no evidence Jesus was an individual and not an amalgamation of several people.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t be bamboozlin’ Eph. His life is a state of confusion as it is. He thinks he is just another amoeba and the planet is screaming through space with no rudder and no helmsman.[/quote]
I got sucked in. 