Nationwide Current Bank Account
Business & Finance1 min ago
Are We Really So Special?
41 Answers
According to the bible, its authors allegedly inspired by God, he made the stars to give light to the earth and to enable human beings to differentiate between the seasons, whereas the Koran, allegedly the actual word of God, tells us that God made to stars as missiles to repel demons. How can anyone in this day and age possibly claim that these so-called holy books should be taken seriously?
(Just scraped the mud off my boots, Vulcan). ;o)
(Just scraped the mud off my boots, Vulcan). ;o)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
benhilton, you’re right. My link doesn’t mention the bible, which is why I posted it. It’s factual. On the other hand, contrary to your presenter’s claim, the biblical creation myth is not factual, eg according to Genesis night, day, and plants were created before the sun existed. Clever!
I watched the whole of the clearly carefully worded presentation suspecting minutes in some sort of religious agenda, before, lo and behold, discovering right at the end it’s the handiwork of the Christadelphians – and hence, unsurprisingly, rather than offering some solid evidence for the authenticity of the biblical creation myth, it concentrates on disingenuously disparaging science – before concluding, quite bizarrely, that the bible and science agree! (Oddly enough, Koranic scholars make similar efforts to convince the world that their book and science agree - but they, like your chaps, also fail miserably).
The presenter claims that science disappoints not only in its theory of evolution, but charges it with failure, through lack of facts, to have found a cure in the past for cholera, causing many to die. However, he neglects to consider that, if he believes his God to be the creator of the universe, it follows that his God also created disease, leaving man to work unceasingly to discover cures for the omnipotent one’s most abominable invention. In the light of that, I hardly think man can be held wholly responsible for causing people to die of disease.
One claim did intrigue me. The presenter said that the oldest objects found are only a few thousand years old. I’ve no idea what he considers to be ‘objects’ and he didn’t elaborate, but since I am aware of evidence from much earlier periods of man’s presence upon the earth, I am at a loss to understand what he’s talking about. Any ideas?
You’re right again in saying that no one has all the answers, but it’s simply irrational to positively attribute the unknown to what, in the complete absence of evidence, can only be described as an imaginary supernatural entity, as your presenter does. Personally I think Douglas’ Vogons are more likely to have had a hand in the creation of the earth, and the life that exists upon it. It’s certainly more feasible – but that’s another story.
I watched the whole of the clearly carefully worded presentation suspecting minutes in some sort of religious agenda, before, lo and behold, discovering right at the end it’s the handiwork of the Christadelphians – and hence, unsurprisingly, rather than offering some solid evidence for the authenticity of the biblical creation myth, it concentrates on disingenuously disparaging science – before concluding, quite bizarrely, that the bible and science agree! (Oddly enough, Koranic scholars make similar efforts to convince the world that their book and science agree - but they, like your chaps, also fail miserably).
The presenter claims that science disappoints not only in its theory of evolution, but charges it with failure, through lack of facts, to have found a cure in the past for cholera, causing many to die. However, he neglects to consider that, if he believes his God to be the creator of the universe, it follows that his God also created disease, leaving man to work unceasingly to discover cures for the omnipotent one’s most abominable invention. In the light of that, I hardly think man can be held wholly responsible for causing people to die of disease.
One claim did intrigue me. The presenter said that the oldest objects found are only a few thousand years old. I’ve no idea what he considers to be ‘objects’ and he didn’t elaborate, but since I am aware of evidence from much earlier periods of man’s presence upon the earth, I am at a loss to understand what he’s talking about. Any ideas?
You’re right again in saying that no one has all the answers, but it’s simply irrational to positively attribute the unknown to what, in the complete absence of evidence, can only be described as an imaginary supernatural entity, as your presenter does. Personally I think Douglas’ Vogons are more likely to have had a hand in the creation of the earth, and the life that exists upon it. It’s certainly more feasible – but that’s another story.
Naomi the presenters in that video gave their gave their names and their qualifications and hence maybe their reputations . Your " dumbing down " to Douglas's Vogons doesn't do you justice . I'm only an occasional contributor to this forum . Looking through the pages it seems that you spend many hours on here . Do you spend all that time on here because you want to get the "best answer " ? I think not . I think that you are searching for something , and whatever it is that you are searching for , I hope that you manage to find it . All the best ...
benhilton - "... the presenters in that video gave their gave their names and their qualifications and hence maybe their reputations . Your " dumbing down " to Douglas's Vogons doesn't do you justice . I'm only an occasional contributor to this forum . Looking through the pages it seems that you spend many hours on here . Do you spend all that time on here because you want to get the "best answer " ? I think not . I think that you are searching for something , and whatever it is that you are searching for , I hope that you manage to find it..."
Congratulations.
That's quite possibly the best worst 'answer' I've ever read. Not once do you defend your position. Not once do you address a single point that Naomi made in her rebuttal to the video. In fact, your response was outright insulting to her personally.
Not only that, but then you had the temerity to end it with, "... All the best...".
Wow.
Congratulations.
That's quite possibly the best worst 'answer' I've ever read. Not once do you defend your position. Not once do you address a single point that Naomi made in her rebuttal to the video. In fact, your response was outright insulting to her personally.
Not only that, but then you had the temerity to end it with, "... All the best...".
Wow.
benhilton, In the absence of a sensible response from you I’ll simply observe that even though the biblical text is demonstrably in error, you, like your presenter, remain convinced it isn’t. That irrationality should worry you.
Incidentally, with reference to Douglas’ Vogons (read as a metaphor for alien civilisations), I’m not joking.
Thanks Birdie.
Incidentally, with reference to Douglas’ Vogons (read as a metaphor for alien civilisations), I’m not joking.
Thanks Birdie.
Naomi , my apologies if I offended you . " Extraterrestrial " influences on ancient humanity , possibly tying in with some of the OT bible characters ? I think you would be interested in the works of Zecharia Sitchin . Here he is giving a talk ( i don't know whether you have already seen this or not ) It's quite long , 2hrs and maybe a bit heavy-going , but it is Zecharia himself talking rather than somebody else (mis-)qouting him . If you go to the youtube page , you can read through the comments and see links to other videos .
Does Zecharia have all the answers ? No... but then again nobody does .
Link :
Does Zecharia have all the answers ? No... but then again nobody does .
Link :
You're giving your Christadelphian video far more respect than it deserves, BenHilton. It is typical of fundamentalist attacks on evolution in two respects. Firstly it shows a complete ignorance of how the word theory is used in science. Here your presenter contrasts "facts" - good - with "theory" - mere speculation. This ignorance is perverse because time and again scientists have tried to correct this misconception. Here's the saintly Dr. Eugenie Scott having a go:
The second is its deployment of what I describe as deliberate misrepresentation. The example in this video is the quoting of Dawkin's comments on the "sudden" appearance of advanced life forms (as fossils) in the Cambrian explosion. The clear implication ("... even Dawkins admits...") is that one of the world's foremost Darwinians is making a grudging admission of a deep flaw in his pet theory. I read the book from which the citation was made a few years ago and re-read the relevant part of it last night. In context Dawkins is saying why the absence of intermediate forms in the Pre-Cambrian DOES NOT constitute a serious objection to evolutionary theory. It's in pages 147-149 of the book The Greatest Show on Earth for those interested.
The second is its deployment of what I describe as deliberate misrepresentation. The example in this video is the quoting of Dawkin's comments on the "sudden" appearance of advanced life forms (as fossils) in the Cambrian explosion. The clear implication ("... even Dawkins admits...") is that one of the world's foremost Darwinians is making a grudging admission of a deep flaw in his pet theory. I read the book from which the citation was made a few years ago and re-read the relevant part of it last night. In context Dawkins is saying why the absence of intermediate forms in the Pre-Cambrian DOES NOT constitute a serious objection to evolutionary theory. It's in pages 147-149 of the book The Greatest Show on Earth for those interested.
In a nutshell Naomi and that link are talking about “vastness” of the universe. And she quoted something from Bible and tried to attach something to Quran. But unfortunately Naomi, who says that she read Quran and knows about Hadith (Sayings of Prophet), could not find any verse from Quran that talks about vastness of the universe and Hadith in the same sense. Of course that happens when you rely on a handful websites for your restricted and selective knowledge.
benhilton, you didn’t offend me. I simply despair at the reluctance of people who make no attempt to defend their argument. However, thank you for the link. I will watch it when I have time. I’ve read some of his books and regard him first and foremost as a writer of science fiction. He allows his imagination to get the better of him – but it sells books.
Keyplus ….. you know better than that. ;o)
Keyplus ….. you know better than that. ;o)
I'll try to contribute further views in response to what's been posted , I'm not reluctant to defend my position , it's just that I may not have the answer to a specific point . Darwins version of evolution is challenged by many scientists not just "religious fundamentalists " . The "fossilography " ( for want of a better description) is also challenged by many - i don't know if you've seen the videos of Lloyd Pye .
Sitchin's video , his works on the Sumerians and their " legends" tying in with a number of the OT accounts , these are some of the most ancient accounts of the history of humanity . The "extraterrestrials " he refers to and the " Angels of God " the OT refers to could well be the same thing .
Going back to you original video in the question , these galaxies are so distant that we are seeing them as they were millions of years ago . If God had put life on any of these then we would never be able to contact them . As far as our own galaxy is concerned , the closest star other than the sun is 4.5 light yrs. so again physical contact would be impossible - we can't travel at anything like the speed of light and are never likely to . That leaves our solar system as the part that we can realistically reach , and within the solar system , yes , we seem to be pretty special . The other planets and our own moon do not appear to be able to support life as we know it . All these fossils about which there is so much argument , they're all on the Earth , about that there is no argument . So yes , I think that we are pretty special .
Sitchin's video , his works on the Sumerians and their " legends" tying in with a number of the OT accounts , these are some of the most ancient accounts of the history of humanity . The "extraterrestrials " he refers to and the " Angels of God " the OT refers to could well be the same thing .
Going back to you original video in the question , these galaxies are so distant that we are seeing them as they were millions of years ago . If God had put life on any of these then we would never be able to contact them . As far as our own galaxy is concerned , the closest star other than the sun is 4.5 light yrs. so again physical contact would be impossible - we can't travel at anything like the speed of light and are never likely to . That leaves our solar system as the part that we can realistically reach , and within the solar system , yes , we seem to be pretty special . The other planets and our own moon do not appear to be able to support life as we know it . All these fossils about which there is so much argument , they're all on the Earth , about that there is no argument . So yes , I think that we are pretty special .
benhilton, all fossils are, indeed, on earth, but since we haven’t yet searched for fossils elsewhere, it would be silly to positively conclude that they exist only on earth. Like everyone who says “it’s impossible”, you restrict the potential of man’s capabilities to our current knowledge, but history demonstrates that many things we now take for granted were not so long ago deemed utterly impossible. Imagine …. just imagine …. a civilisation 10,000 years, or a billion years if you like, in advance of our own – and since much of the universe is far older than our solar system, there’s no reason to presume that older civilisations don’t exist. Why wouldn’t they? Perhaps others conquered the challenges that we say are impossible to overcome millennia ago. For example, experiments in teleportation are currently being conducted – and with some degree of success. Who’d have thought it? We’re young – give us time – but in the meantime let us not settle for supernatural explanations. That restricts the potential of our intellect to the Dark Ages – and that is prohibitive.
Sitchin is right in saying that ancient accounts, including some from the bible, indicate the presence on earth in the past of technologically advanced beings, so the question is why don’t we believe those accounts? Why do we dismiss them – and they come from all over the world - as fanciful - and even stupid - and yet cling doggedly to far less likely supernatural explanations offered by the very same books? Because we don’t possess the common sense or the foresight to envisage the potential of man’s future discoveries? I think so. If we consider that only 150 or so years ago, the concept of heavier than air aircraft was scoffed at, in terms of technology 10,000 years is a very long time.
Sitchin is right in saying that ancient accounts, including some from the bible, indicate the presence on earth in the past of technologically advanced beings, so the question is why don’t we believe those accounts? Why do we dismiss them – and they come from all over the world - as fanciful - and even stupid - and yet cling doggedly to far less likely supernatural explanations offered by the very same books? Because we don’t possess the common sense or the foresight to envisage the potential of man’s future discoveries? I think so. If we consider that only 150 or so years ago, the concept of heavier than air aircraft was scoffed at, in terms of technology 10,000 years is a very long time.
