Worldviews

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

you are doing what most religious people do, picking and choosing what you listen to and ignoring the rest, here is the consensus about the age of the earth.

Who's picking and choosing, I just referenced a secular source? Or are you saying that I should pick 2 or opposing views to support? How many conflicting views do you support?

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.

so it's either 4.54 billion years old or 6000 years old?

Did you read my sources, including the secular (lest you accuse me of being biased ) I referenced a classic paper that threw out 80% of the radiometric age indications, citing "inaccuracy". This means that they did not get the expected result, so it must be wrong. If you pick and choose the results you get, how does this represent unbiased accuracy?

Also your citation for the age of the earth is by no means by undisputed consensus among the secular scientists either. I have read a couple papers that peg it at a maximum of 1.2 billion and down to 750 000 million just to muddy the waters even more.

For the above reasons and the natural infusion of argon, these methods are by no means fool proof. You would really have to know the entire history of what you were testing to get an accurate result which would render your test redundant in any event.

there is only one truth it can't be both, maybe the 6000 year theory is due to that being about the time in human evolution we were able to start communicating and establishing written word I don't know, but it can't be both 4.54 billion and 6000, the white house can't be both white and black depending on who you ask, it's white.

That's a kooky coincidence, isn't it? Not to mention, by anyone's scale we would have been able to leave a record long, long before that time.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

I am seriously glad that some of your family is in remission; I don't think there is a family that has not been touched by cancer.

I do assume though, that regular medical (scientific based and researched) treatments occurred, or did they eschew them?

I was not being funny about the exorcisms; I know of at least one fundamentalist person who practices exorcisms through her church, claiming that she can cure mentally ill people by driving the devil out of them... seriously, I am not making that up.

THAT bothers the heck out of me!

Fundamentalist does not mean, eschewing science, and conventional medicine. However there are some people who believe in various aspects of the Bible that just don't happen today. There were miracles performed to achieve a certain end, that just aren't required today.

Not to say that God does not perform miracles today, but it is not as common, generally not because of prayer, and certainly not as "showy".

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe, and the implications of such an interpretation are investigated below. Some creationists provided even more detailed models, and these are also addressed (see especially sections 5 and 7).

References are listed at the end of each section.

Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas speculation that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Could it not? How would you know it wasn't reinforced?

2. Gathering the Animals
Bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

•Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
•Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
•Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
•Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.

There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments. Gathered from a similar environment and released there would have no need for special care. The creationists who propose all the species living together in a uniform climate are effectively proposing the destruction of all environments but one. Not many species could have survived that.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard
To determine how much space is required for animals, we must first determine what is a kind, how many kinds were aboard the ark, and how big they were.

What is a kind? Creationists themselves can't decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark "kind" must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:

•For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
•The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
•The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today. Dogs have only been selectively bred for certain characteristics for a couple hundred years...
What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

•The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
•They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.
Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.

Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

•The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity. Indicates nothing of the sort. Ie: arranged marriages while the kids are well below the age of reproducing.
•Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.
The last point does not apply to all animals. However, the animals don't need parental care tend to be animals that mature quickly, and thus would be close to adult size after a year of growth anyway. Animal instinct?

How many clean animals were on the ark? The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [Wilson & Reeder, 1993], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.

Woodmorappe (p. 8-9) gets around the problem by citing Jewish tradition which gives only 13 domestic genera as clean. He then calculates that this would increase the total animal mass by 2-3% and decides that this amount is small enough that he can ignore it completely. However, even Jewish sources admit that this contradicts the unambiguous word of the Bible. [Steinsaltz, 1976, p. 187]

The number and size of clean birds is small enough to disregard entirely, but the Bible at one point (Gen. 7:3) says seven of all kinds of birds were aboard.

So, could they all fit? It is important to take the size of animals into account when considering how much space they would occupy because the greatest number of species occurs in the smallest animals. Woodmorappe performed such an analysis and came to the conclusion that the animals would take up 47% of the ark. In addition, he determines that about 10% of the ark was needed for food (compacted to take as little space as possible) and 9.4% for water (assuming no evaporation or wastage). At least 25% of the space would have been needed for corridors and bracing. Thus, increasing the quantity of animals by more than about 5% would overload the ark.
[COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]Guess the foreman had it figured pretty close, eh?[/COLOR]
However, Woodmorappe makes several questionable and invalid assumptions. Here's how the points discussed above affect his analysis. Table 1 shows Woodmorappe's analysis and some additional calculations.


•Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold. The most speciose groups tend to be the smaller animals, though, so the total mass would be approximately doubled or tripled.
•Collecting all land animals instead of just mammals, birds, and reptiles would have insignificant impact on the space required, since those animals, though plentiful, are so small. (The problems come when you try to care for them all.)
•Leaving off the long-extinct animals would free considerable space. Woodmorappe doesn't say how many of the animals in his calculations are known only from fossils, but it is apparently 50-70% of them, including most of the large ones. However, since he took only juveniles of the large animals, leaving off all the dinosaurs etc. would probably not free more than 80% of the space. On the other hand, collecting all extinct animals in addition to just the known ones would increase the load by an unknown but probably substantial amount.
•Loading adults instead of juveniles as small as Woodmorappe uses would increase the load 13- to 50-fold.
•Including extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5-3% if only the 13 traditional domestic ruminants are considered, but by 14-28% if all ruminants are considered clean.
In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.

Hard to pin down an exact number. Not to mention the size of the Ark may be slightly conservative due to the measurement being cubits.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

.......
Did you read my sources, including the secular (lest you accuse me of being biased ) I referenced a classic paper that threw out 80% of the radiometric age indications, citing "inaccuracy". This means that they did not get the expected result, so it must be wrong. If you pick and choose the results you get, how does this represent unbiased accuracy?

Actually, here is a very good video that discusses various dating, but concentrating on radiometric, dating, and when it is valid, versus when not to use it.

It's about 10 minutes, but it is instructional.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

I could tell you a story about a personal experience of being in the presence of a man I believe was under the influence of a demonic power. He verbally attacked me one day, and what I saw in his eyes was awful scary! I still get the shivers when I think about it.

I think we have all met the odd nutcase.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by avb3

I think we have all met the odd nutcase.

sure there are quite a few around here

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by avb3

I think we have all met the odd nutcase.

Yup, for sure

Thing is, the guy who attacked me that day is normally well-balanced and is highly intelligent. He's got a significant list of letters behind his name, and works in a profession that requires being very 'sharp-minded'. It was not at all in his character to do what he did, and a lot of witnesses to the event were puzzled at the ferocity of the attack. He sort of apologized several weeks later with those famous words, "I don't know what came over me, it was like I was possessed."
Nevertheless, I've kept my distance from him - literally - 3500 kms or so

Regardless, there are spiritual realities that science cannot definitively prove, it can often merely theorize and speculate about them. But to dismiss spiritual realities is a mistake. And often the best we can do is use the tools we've got to try and figure them out; the Bible is one of those tools, personal experiences and testimonies - also of eyewitnesses - is another, and so are scientific endeavors.

The Biblical Scriptures teach that these spiritual realities influence the physical material world in both good and bad ways. Evil comes from evil sources and good from good. Evil seeks to disrupt good, and good seeks to 'repair' and or prevent evil.

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

sure there are quite a few around here

eastcoast, like your new avatar.

Glad I'm on His team, we can't lose

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

eastcoast, like your new avatar.

Glad I'm on His team, we can't lose

whatever gets you through the day I say.

I have a picture of santa clause on my wall and I pray to him daily.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, here is a very good video that discusses various dating, but concentrating on radiometric, dating, and when it is valid, versus when not to use it.

It's about 10 minutes, but it is instructional.

Yes indead a very good video, regarless of any sarcasim. But as usual, the words assume, assumption, and possible neglect to mention that you would need a testube like environment to validate such opinions is lacking. Many variables that would affect this type of reading are missing.

She says the snake deceived me, he says the women you put her gave it to me, Yet before it even began He said don't eat it. Every one has an opinion or approach, question is are all opinions correct?

Let see some other opinions on this matter

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...c-dating-prove

If there was a flood could it have affected the dating, is the dating dependent on when the actual object came into being, and the energy used to form an object at an accelerated rate (one day) could this have an affect on radioactive dating. Afterall, they admit that solar flares are believed to have a small paercentage of affect. But we're talking about enough energy to create in one day.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Yes indead a very good video, regarless of any sarcasim. But as usual, the words assume, assumption, and possible neglect to mention that you would need a testube like environment to validate such opinions is lacking. Many variables that would affect this type of reading are missing.

She says the snake deceived me, he says the women you put her gave it to me, Yet before it even began He said don't eat it. Every one has an opinion or approach, question is are all opinions correct?

Let see some other opinions on this matter

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...inningTOC.html

With all due respect, creationscience is not science.

There just is NO, absolutely none, scientific credibility there.

You see, real science and real scientists are very open to premises being questioned, and very open to new facts.

Creationists are not. Their faith dictates that all knowledge already exists, and that something written over 2000 years ago is all the that is needed to understand the world.

Real science does not work that way; it wants new ideas, it wants new postulates, and it is open to theories being questioned, but they need to be questioned scientifically, not dogmatically.

I always wonder why creationists are so willing to accept the science that developed our modern lifestyle, the science that developed modern medicine, and yet denies or attempts to obfuscate when that same scientific process, used in geology, geo-physics, chemistry, physics and biology uses to show the true age of our earth is in the billions and not the thousands of years.

How can the scientific process be correct in developing medicine, in finding minerals, in developing new electronics, but it be so wrong in aging the earth?

It just fascinates me that otherwise intelligent people can live the dichotomy between faith and knowledge.

[30Cal]

More bad news for radioactive dating

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Sorry...sounds plausible to me

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

More bad news for radioactive dating



Sorry...sounds plausible to me

if you ask a totally bias source expect a bias opinion, the "scientists" that question this have their mind made before they start, which as avb has already said is not very scientific at all.

next they are going to ask their mom's if they are good kids

[eastcoast]

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

More bad news for radioactive dating

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Sorry...sounds plausible to me

Where is the peer review?

Although the link you posted makes it appear it is on a university website, it is clear that it is a personal opinion, not peer reviewed, and the only link in it connects to a fundamentalist site.

BTW, did you know the university it is hosted on allows stem cell research up to the 14th day of an embryo?

I don't think you did this on purpose, but it is very deceiving to show a link which many will construe to have scientific validity as it appears to be from university (the .edu domain), when it really is something else.

I wonder which devil made the person do that?

I HATE that type of dishonesty. Do you?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

I always wonder why creationists are so willing to accept the science that developed our modern lifestyle, the science that developed modern medicine, and yet denies or attempts to obfuscate when that same scientific process, used in geology, geo-physics, chemistry, physics and biology uses to show the true age of our earth is in the billions and not the thousands of years.

How can the scientific process be correct in developing medicine, in finding minerals, in developing new electronics, but it be so wrong in aging the earth?

It just fascinates me that otherwise intelligent people can live the dichotomy between faith and knowledge.

There are Creationist who are Scientist, who open their arms to Scientific and Medical advancements but not without question. In addition, they have contributed to some of these advancements, and continue to do so as long as they are within a moral or ethical boundary. But to ask them or anyone to accept scientific assumptions or hypothesis in faith would not be Scientific. Scientific research relies on facts and studies that should examine all variables. However, our history will show us that both secular Scientist and Christian Scientist alike have fabricated material in the pursuit of fame or acknowledgement. In any measure of Science one should at least try to include all variables that would bring discredit as well as credit to their theories; such is Science. If I were to accept scientific theories/hypothesis by faith then what would the Scientist need to prove? Is it not through opposition or contrast to another’s opinions, which the wheel of Science continues to move forwards. Maybe this is what Albert Einstein meant when he said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” Why do people often quote Einstein because he was accepted by many to be an intellect, and great scholar. In a similiar manner Christians look at Christ.

So what did Albert have to say about Jesus?

When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

G. S. Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein," Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929; Schlagschatten, Sechsundzwanzig Schicksalsfragen an Grosse der Zeit (Vogt-Schild, Solothurn, 1930), p. 60; Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), pp. 373-374

Even Einstein was not too quick to dismiss Him

And in respect to medicine, should I trust every advancement and discovery that has been made, in faith without questioning? I should hope not. Too many have, and they now suffer the consequences of secondary aliments from the result of their primary conditions being treated.

I would like to believe that God is omniscient as scripture teaches; this would mean that He is not separate from Science. I don’t limit Him from using non-believers in discovering new knowledge that can be used to bring cures or a better life for mankind. I can even find accounts where Scientist have come to believe in Him through the knowledge they have attained. So their faith came through the knowledge they attained, and from believing.

I believe the dilemma you are faced with or the reason you cannot understand why “intelligent people can live the dichotomy between faith and knowledge”, is because you might lack something that they have. The Spirit.

“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age” , to fall away.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

..................

So what did Albert have to say about Jesus?

When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

G. S. Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein," Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929; Schlagschatten, Sechsundzwanzig Schicksalsfragen an Grosse der Zeit (Vogt-Schild, Solothurn, 1930), p. 60; Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), pp. 373-374

Even Einstein was not too quick to dismiss Him

What Einstein really said about religion and the quotes attributed to him:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in
Albert Einstein: The Human Side
(1981) edited byHelen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman
ISBN 0691023689

Let the truth be known and the truth set you free.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Where is the peer review?

Although the link you posted makes it appear it is on a university website, it is clear that it is a personal opinion, not peer reviewed, and the only link in it connects to a fundamentalist site.

BTW, did you know the university it is hosted on allows stem cell research up to the 14th day of an embryo?

I don't think you did this on purpose, but it is very deceiving to show a link which many will construe to have scientific validity as it appears to be from university (the .edu domain), when it really is something else.

I wonder which devil made the person do that?

I HATE that type of dishonesty. Do you?

How is that dishonesty, is a person not allow to post on a University site their findings, or is it dependent on the virtue of what the University believes? The writer has made no confirmation that he believes as the University does, but simply uses his account. A weak argument at most? If this were the case I would never have been able to post anything at the University or Colleges I've attended.

Does this mean I can't drive my car because a murder, who I don't know about has helped put my vehicle together at the factory?

Are you simply dismissing everything someone says based on their status, or the means of which they circulating their opinion.

Does this mean you would have turned Augusto and Michaela Odone, away simply because of their lack of education and stature?

Then let us not listen to "Amazing Grace" anymore because it possibly had its beginnings aboard a slave ship? Actually I encourage everyone to read about the author of Amazing Grace (John Newton) - amazing story. Did you know that in the same year that he died, the British Parliment obolished the slave trade. Coincidence, I quess not. Even Albert knew there was no such things as coincidences "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Actually I wouldn't care if he wrote it on a sidewalk, my interest would be to decide if I thought it was valid regardless of where it is written or it's means of transportation.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

How is that dishonesty, is a person not allow to post on a University site their findings, or is it dependent on the virtue of what the University believes? The writer has made no confirmation that he believes as the University does, but simply uses his account. A weak argument at most? If this were the case I would never have been able to post anything at the University or Colleges I've attended.

Good, then we are agreed it is his personal opinion, and not a peer reviewed dissertation?

Are you simply dismissing everything someone says based on their status, or the means of which they circulating their opinion.

It's fair to have an opinion, but there are a multitude of other places it can be posted without attempting to exude the "authority" of being something developed at an educational institute. It is dishonest, and an attempt to deceive, and I can't stand that.

It goes against my morals, and I believe your 10 commandments indicate that they do not exactly endorse that either.

Does this mean you would have turned Augusto and Michaela Odone, away simply because of their lack of education and stature?

No idea who they are.

Edit: OK, so I did a search on them... yeah... they are the scammers on that Lorenzo oil stuff. Unreplicatable horse manure, and not scientific in any way shape or form. Tin foil hat stuff. Hate that stuff.. it goes well with conspiracy theories. Glad they started a foundation to do research into the disease though. The doctor involved was a quack.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

What Einstein really said about religion and the quotes attributed to him:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in
Albert Einstein: The Human Side
(1981) edited byHelen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman
ISBN 0691023689

Let the truth be known and the truth set you free.

So what are you implying that the Saturday Evening Post was lying, I'm certain Einstein would have done a quick rebuttal if this were the case.

And when he wrote this letter replying to an atheist about his religious convictions, what was he referring to? The interview that he had with the Saturday Evening Post?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

So what are you implying that the Saturday Evening Post was lying, I'm certain Einstein would have done a quick rebuttal if this were the case.

And when he wrote this letter replying to an atheist about his religious convictions, what was he referring to? The interview that he had with the Saturday Evening Post?

there was also something written about darwin recanting on his deathbed, which was unproveable and untrue, and recently I read that christopher hitchens the worlds leading athiest recanted on his death bed aswell, it's distortion of the truth by religious people who want others to join them ,and a mockery of human decency to lie about others final words to prove your point.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

So what are you implying that the Saturday Evening Post was lying, I'm certain Einstein would have done a quick rebuttal if this were the case.

And when he wrote this letter replying to an atheist about his religious convictions, what was he referring to? The interview that he had with the Saturday Evening Post?

He also said:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.
You maycall me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor ismostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.
Iprefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in
Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)

And further, about the bible he said:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.Gutkind Letter (3 January 1954), "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religionrelatively clear (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion) ",The Guardian, 13 May 2008.

And he further said:

I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.Quoted in Jamie Sayen,
Einstein in America
(1985). Said to Vladimir Bargmann, with the meaning that God leads people to believe they understand things that they actually are far from understanding. [The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, 2006]

Einstein clearly was not religious; so please, even though I don't question the Saturday Evening Post, I do wonder what context it was quoted in.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Good, then we are agreed it is his personal opinion, and not a peer reviewed dissertation?



It's fair to have an opinion, but there are a multitude of other places it can be posted without attempting to exude the "authority" of being something developed at an educational institute. It is dishonest, and an attempt to deceive, and I can't stand that.

It goes against my morals, and I believe your 10 commandments indicate that they do not exactly endorse that either.



No idea who they are.

Edit: OK, so I did a search on them... yeah... they are the scammers on that Lorenzo oil stuff. Unreplicatable horse manure, and not scientific in any way shape or form. Tin foil hat stuff. Hate that stuff.. it goes well with conspiracy theories. Glad they started a foundation to do research into the disease though. The doctor involved was a quack.

How do you know he was "attempting to exude the "authority" of being something developed at an educational institute" did you ask him?...assumption at most. The fact is that he has wrote a compelling argument which contains knowledge that warrants investigation. I'm looking for the varibles, and I'm not willing to dismissed anything by virtue of ones position in society, or their educational background, or by the media that they use to convey their ideas.

I don't have 10 commandments...again another assumption. I only have two commandments, I'm not of the Old. I'm of the New.

[30Cal]

Have to go for now thanks for your insite .... it helps to broaden my mind.

Thanks again everyone for the mental stimulation

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, here is a very good video that discusses various dating, but concentrating on radiometric, dating, and when it is valid, versus when not to use it.

It's about 10 minutes, but it is instructional.

Yeah, no big surprise that it took only 10 minutes. Didn't address all the points in the lengthier links posted. So what's he going to do after he graduates from the Toronto liberal arts college?

Hardly an unbiased view, kind of the anti-thesis of scientific. BTW, wheres all this guy's peer reviewed studies that carry so much weight?

Kind of reminds me of the smug biologists (if that's what they were pretending to be) that were cutting up the giraffe. Too bad the real biologist who commented on it wasn't there. I don't think it's the same guy, here's another:http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf

[Tactical Lever]

Here's another: , (f) the special structures of the rete mirabile (system of blood-storing arteries
at the brain base), (g) the „coordinated system of blood pressure controls“ (for,
among other things, the enormously high blood pressure), and it should again be kept
in mind: (h) „The capillaries that reach the surface are extremely small, and (i) the
red blood cells are about one-third the size of their human counterparts, making
capillary passage possible“; (j) the precisely coordinated lengths, strengths and
functionality of the skeletal, muscular and nervous systems; (k) the efficient „large
lungs“ (l) „the thick skin, which is tightly stretched over the body and which
functions like the anti-gravity suit worn by pilots of fast aircraft“

Some more: http://www.weloennig.de/GiraffaSecondPartEnglish.pdf

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

More misdirection. If you read the Bible it would tell you that pastors should be family men. The Bible actually encourages sex in a marriage relationship.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

More misdirection. If you read the Bible it would tell you that pastors should be family men. The Bible actually encourages sex in a marriage relationship.

Actually, Paul in various writings would prefer that men stay single, although, paraphrasing, he does say something to the effect, if one must fornicate, then get married, but better to be celibate.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, Paul in various writings would prefer that men stay single, although, paraphrasing, he does say something to the effect, if one must fornicate, then get married, but better to be celibate.

Question: "Was the Apostle Paul married?"

Answer: The Bible never says whether Paul was married or not. Some think that he was at one time based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Paul was married at one time, his wife likely passed away considering he never mentions her in any of his writings. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.

Paul’s statement to the unmarried and widows in the Corinthian church gives evidence that he was not married at the time of his writing the letter: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Clearly, he was not married at that time, but whether he married afterward is also a matter of speculation.

Some believe that the Apostle Paul was married because history tells us that a member of the Sanhedrin was required to be married. However, Paul never stated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. He definitely seemed to be on the path, "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). However, Paul might not have advanced that far before He converted to Christ.

So, was the Apostle Paul married? It is possible that he was at one time, but again, the Bible does not specifically say.

http://www.gotquestions.org/apostle-Paul-married.html

Pauls desire for man and women not to marry would have been influenced by his desire to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for he knew from experience that an unmarried man or women could focus all their energy on Christ

"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband." 1 Cor 7:32-34

Yet, it was never a question of what Paul's will was, it is a question of what God's will is for ones life.

"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God" 1 Cor 7:7.

Paul recognized the struggles married couples would go through. And felt it would be better if one was not likely married; although he also recognized this was not God's will for everyone. So it depends on what you are implying by better? I certain there were many good men that suffered because of their belief in Christ and were married. Peter was one of them When Jesus came into "Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever" Matt 8:14

"Yet not as I will, but as you will." - Matt 8:14

This would mean that God did not will that all men remained unmarried, or like Paul they would have received this Gift from Him.

And in the beginning it was not God's intention that all men should be alone "And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Many couples go into ministry today in remote places where a help mate shares in the Gospel of Christ. In addition, proliferation of the species must be considered also. Not just for those who disbelieve, but also for the believers.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

....
Pauls desire for man and women not to marry would have been influenced by his desire to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for he knew from experience that an unmarried man or women could focus all their energy on Christ
......

So you agree then that the bible is not exactly overwhelming in its endorsement of marriage, especially in the majority of the books of the NT?

Paul is pretty clear on his support for celibacy; no surprise that the Catholic church teaches the same for their priests.