|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote (concerning the age of the earth according to fundamentalists):
I think because there is a lineage of people all the way from Adam to Jesus, and the maximum life span of a person was around 900 years. (Yes, 900 years. Bizarre. But that's what the Bible says.) I bow down to any Bible pedants who may be able to shed further light on this.
Let me start at the end: I admit to being a pedant - though I'm not as good at it as you are  . But as far as the bible is concerned I am not a pedant - nor am I a fundamentalist.
As far as the 6000-7000 years are concerned: in the 2nd century a rabbi wrote a book in which he calculated the age of the earth according to statistics which can be gleaned from the bible (with a little help from rabbinic 'interpretation'). His calculations are to this day the basis of the Jewish determination that the current year is 5766 AM (anno mundi). Bishop Usher (mentioned in another post in this thread), wittingly or unwittingly, built his calculations on a similar foundation.
(The date 5766 is based on biblical 'data'; but the Jewish calendar itself is based on surprisingly accurate astronomy. The rabbis, for more than 2000 years, admit that "year 1" is a chronological fiction.)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the proof of Intelligent Design is in the fact that the universe exists .
John Doe worked in a bank. Over the years he managed to skim off clients' accounts a very large sum to his own purposes. His employers knew that someone was 'fiddling the books' but because John's methods were most successful they could never point a finger at a suspect. All this time John was secreting the sums of money in a large lead-lined box which he buried two metres deep under a tree in a secluded part of the local park.
The time came for John Doe to retire. In his retirement he built himself a magnificent mansion with an olympic-sized swimming pool and a jacuzzi; he bought himself two brand new cars which came together with a private chauffeur; and he employed a staff of twelve servants in his mansion.
When the retired bank teller began showing such signs of riches his former employers drew the obvious conclusions and referred the matter to the police. The police questioned John as to the source of his wealth. This is what he told them:
One night I had a dream. In this dream an angel came to me and told me to go to a certain place in our local part. Then I was to walk 63 paces to the north, then 27 paces to the west. There I would find a tree. 50 centimetres from the north face of the trunk of the tree I was to dig a hole to a depth of two metres and then I would find a lead-lined box. The angel told me that the contents of the box would be mine as a reward for living an upright life.
The police were, of course, very suspicious, even after John had shown them the place where he found the box. They asked whether he could offer any proof to back up his story. "Of course I can," said John; "here is the money and here is the box!"
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>So by your last statement it means that you personally investigate everything you hear until you are ready to believe it?
Yes! If I hear anything on which I am not absolutely sure of the veracity, I look it up. If I can't find any evidence either way, I normally discard it, or at least file it in the "not yet sure" category (which I would not draw upon in any argument). I must say, I am surprised that you don't. There are at least two sides to any issue, and I want to be sure than I don't get the wrong end of the stick.
>I do trust the integrety of some sources just as you do; you seem to trust google for instance.
I agree that referring to Google and Wikipedia is sometimes a little bit too easy, BUT the thing about both of them is that they have a hell of a lot of contributors. It would be difficult for a systematic bias to creep into ALL the information they give. Whereas if you base your beliefs on the opinions of one preacher, all it takes is for him to fiddle the figures a bit, and you think you have just heard a valid argument.
I don't trust any single source on Google, but when I see a good number of sources -- especially when they are traceable back via references to university studies and proper scientific researchers -- I am inclined to believe it. Though even then I try to remain impartial and sceptical.
>It seems to me that you have a bit of an attitude of arrogance about what you believe.
Pot, meet kettle.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I readily confess that I have no specialist knowledge in atomic physics or chemistry. So I don't have much of an idea what you are talking about.
Can you give me a citation for this work? The theory behind the experiments? The researchers who did the experiments? Have you followed the scientific literature to see what the community's conclusions were? Remember (I hope you do) that one scientist who comes up with an invalid theory does not make scientific method wrong -- in fact, if his theory is falsiable and evidence proves it erroneous, then it is good as it eliminates that possibility and progresses our knowledge of the universe slightly. And if a researcher relied on bad science, then I would be very surprised if others did not condemn him for it.
While I am perfectly ready to believe that you do have a good understanding of the science, your post itself gives no specific details and I would be going against my own principles if I believed you out of hand. I criticise people regardless of whether I "like" them or whether I agree with the broad thrust of their arguments (note the fact that I corrected Timmy yesterday on natural selection). It is good that you view these things critically, but to be able to criticise research you need impeccable knowledge of it -- and if you have such knowledge, then you shouldn't need just to say "it looked fishy to me" -- you should be able to cite other people who thought the same thing, or even write a paper yourself.
Have you ever considered the possibility of using paragraphs, by the way?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This is a NOVA program dedicated to the theories heretofor expoused.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/
Research it and it should ask all the in depth questions you insist on having answers to.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Marc. It is interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Just to be biblically pedantic - it was 969 years.;-D
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13798
|
|
|
Now let me see.
900 years of life but no written descriptions of miraculous healing, and no antibiotics.
A very shallow gene pool. Adam and Eve did a bit of begetting, and begat Cain and Abel. With whom did they do their begetting?
A while later there was a flood. Very few humans survived. Mr and Mrs Noah, their sons and their wives. So, quite a lot more begetting in a by now woefully inbred gene pool. In the UK that class lost their chins. I ownder what the human race lost.
Somewhere along the way the Pharoah;s daughter found she was pregnant, and cheerfully 'found a child' in some bullrushes. "Hey, dad, look what I've found, can I keep it?"
Quite a while later, after this lot had filled the world, or at least the Middle East with progeny from a heavily inbred gene pool, and had disobeyed all the prohibitions on incest, there was a sweet girl whose boyfriend was called Yussuf. She has a bit of a problem withy an early version of the parable of the sower, because some spilt on fertile ground, but without digging or ploughing. "Mum, Dad, this glowing bloke, Gabriel, turned up; had a couple of wings on his shoulders and a round golden hat. He said it's God's kid. That's OK isn't it?"
Frankly I can see why Judaism said "Enough, already!" at this point. But they's already had battle won with trunpets and jawbones of donkeys.
The whole sopa opera is fanciful in the extreme. It would never have got TV airtime today. No-one would believe it.
Ah wait. People thought Dallas was real!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Dallas wasn't real?????????????
Sigh.........
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13798
|
|
|
I'm sorry. I should have broken that news gently. While we're on the subject Dynasty was not real either, and nor is Coronation Street.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I happen to watch Corronation Street RELIGOUSLY.......
It IS real...... thankyouverymuch....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
Now let me see. 900 years of life but no written descriptions of miraculous healing, and no antibiotics. etc etc etc
As Pooh-Bah says: "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give
artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing
narrative."
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Ken, I've stayed out of this dialogue intentionally, but I'm afraid that I can't resist the urge to put my oar in!
I am not a scientist, but I do have an interest in most scientific disciplines, especially those connected with Earth history. I read a number of scientific journals, and I assure you that the tendency of scientists (and indeed academics) to tear each other into shreds is as strong as ever it was. There is no scientific agenda to undermine creationism, for the simple reason that throughout most of the scientific world it is an irrelevance. Certainly in the Christian world the vast majority of religions see no conflict between scientific theory and the Bible, because the Bible is accepted as an allegorical account. Thus, in far the greater part of the scientific community there is no 'agenda' biased against creationism - it simply isn't taken into account.
It is however abundantly clear that within the creationist lobby there is a very real bias against any non-compliant view, and it takes little research to see that such bias is quite capable of ignoring facts, as well as opinions, in pursuit of its objectives.
With respect, you are pretty clearly a victim of such misinformation, insofar as you dismiss 'Lucy' as a mere jawbone when (as both Deeej and I have pointed out) it was a remarkably complete fossil skeleton, with over 40% of the bones present. The conclusions drawn from the skeletal remains are to an extent theoretical, but the existence of a large proportion of the skeleton is - purely and simply - a fact.
Marc's link provides the explanation for research in deep mines - it minimises background radiation which would otherwise distort or totally obscure the subject of the research. Talking of someone 'sitting down a coalmine for five years' is not only trivialising the research, but clearly displays your predisposition to reject the result. If you make any pretension to scientific knowledge, you must accept that measurements in parts per million are both significant and commonplace. You don't give enough information to enable me to identify the study to which you are referring, but if the particle were predicted to occur with a frequency of 10 per million, then 10 per million would be the correct result.
UK law prohibits the presence of certain chemicals - such as benzene - in water supplies and foodstuffs to levels fewer than 10 parts per million. I'd suggest that this tiny proportion is highly significant - if you exceed it there is a real risk of serious health problems.
I would also seriously suggest that having adopted creationist beliefs, the constant reinforcement of those beliefs by your Church means that you need to be especially rigorous and detailed in examining conflicting research before you dismiss it out of hand.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I think I'll stick with 'bald and unconvincing'.
In any event my wife accuses me of being as old as Methusaleh (or Methuselah) already (just 'cos she's five years younger than me!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So by your last statement it means that you personally investigate everything you hear until you are ready to believe it?
Yes! If I hear anything on which I am not absolutely sure of the veracity, I look it up. If I can't find any evidence either way, I normally discard it, or at least file it in the "not yet sure" category (which I would not draw upon in any argument). I must say, I am surprised that you don't. There are at least two sides to any issue, and I want to be sure than I don't get the wrong end of the stick.
You misunderstand my use of the word "personally". This means that you would have to go to the person who wrote the thing you read to see if it was true; that you would have to personally verify the data of any research that you have heard or read that someone used to make a conclusion with which you agree. This is what you were asking me to do. I am unable to personally look into everything as I probably only have a couple of hundred years left of my life. You tell me that my sources are not acceptable as I cannot be sure I have the real thing and that someone has not changed or altered what I read but you place no such restrictions on your sources. How, for instance, can you be so sure that what you look at thru going to google is the real actual acticle and has not been tampered with by someone? NOw of course you are going to say this is rediculous and I agree, but just as much for you sources as mine.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will check out what you state about "Lucy" and I will reserve my opinion until after I do that.
I was not trivialising the experiement as it was done in one of the only places it could be done, I suppose in fact there is no other place you could actually do it. I was pointing out that to me there was little significance to finding only about 5 or 10 instances to use that could verify the theory in about 5 years. To me this was just not sounding like very good proof as it would seem that these particles are not that rare according to what was said. I guess I was using the fact that I am somewhat knowledgeable as to what constitutes matter. There are so many molecules or atoms in even the smallest sample of something you could put in your hand that you would never be able to count them. The fact that this particle is going to appear in even 10 parts per billion should have had it appearing more often I would think. I would be critical of this experiment and be inclined to dismiss the instances that he used to prove his theory as perhaps being annomylies(sp?) or as we might say, just plain error!
I am only just talking about it in relation to testing and repeatability and probability of error in the results and it doesn't seem like a good example of good methodology. This is only my opinion and I havent looked real close at this; it was done a few years back and written up in a long article in popular science I think. It had interviews with the guy who made the experiment and I assumed that the data they printed about it was probably fairly accurate although probably not really complete in some ways.
I remember that when I went through college it seemed that proof of a theoretical particle needed to be a bit more repeatable than this seemed to be. I was trying to show that some of the things I know that science seems to accept as "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" can still be sitting on some fairly tenuous grounds.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read someplace (I know Deeej is gonna ask so I got the book out), that there are two Hebrew words used for "year". One is yar, 360 days, the other is sar, (a year of God) 3,600 years. the part in the bible where an only lives 120 years is incorrect. I think its, the number of man is 120 sar. What its saying is that the time from the creation of man till the flood is 432,000 years. There was a missinterpretation of the words used for year. They thougth somebody just made a mistake.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1407a wrote:
I read someplace (I know Deeej is gonna ask so I got the book out), that there are two Hebrew words used for "year". One is yar, 360 days, the other is sar, (a year of God) 3,600 years.
Brian, I am probably the person most qualified to relate to this information since Hebrew is the language that I habitually use in everyday life. The information is complete nonsense. The words you quote do not exist in Hebrew (or any cognate language). There is one Hebrew word for a year and that is shanah (which comes from a root meaning revolution, repetition). Maybe you could furnish us with the name of the book, author, publisher, date.
The approach you mentioned sounds fundamentalist in that it attempts to justify the verbal accuracy of the Bible.
The trouble with the fundamentalist approach - for me - is that it cannot accept that some of the matters reported in the bible are not accurate history, but folk legend and literary embellishment. Now, the British can accept that King Alfred did exist even if he did not actually burn some cakes; the Americans can accept that George Washington did exist even if it is not possible to prove that his father had a cherry-tree. Not everything that is told of great people has to be accepted as inerringly accurate.
Sorry to be a spoilsport. Hugs.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13798
|
|
|
So it's really only the Christians that take this book as inerrant?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
So it's really only the Christians that take this book as inerrant?
Seems so. Though there are many fundamentalist Jews; but even they, to some extent, accept the idea that not everything in the bible is to be understood literally. The ancient sages had a field day with 'interpretation' - even 'interpreting' some biblical commandments out of existence.
The topical discussion concerning homosexual rabbis and gay weddings in Conservative Judaism, which you presented to us a couple of weeks ago, is based on 'interpretation'. Vive l'interpretation!
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The experiment was repeated in Japan.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In that case I do not expect you to do physical research "personally". But virtually nothing in science is done "personally" -- one has to rely on what others have already done in that area. Which is fine, provided one views their research with plenty of scepticism and doesn't take the word of one person without valid experimental evidence.
However, there are levels of trust within the scientific community, and I am afraid, whatever you might think, that a preacher who is in no way a professional scientist comes right down at the bottom of the list.
>How, for instance, can you be so sure that what you look at thru going to google is the real actual acticle and has not been tampered with by someone?
How do I know that someone has not been tampering with the papers in the library? How do I know that the editor of a book has not subtly changed all the opinions of his contributors to suit his agenda?
Yes, I have to trust them, and assume that if there were a problem, someone else would pick it up and I would find out in due course.
But I can still make a fairly educated guess as to the veracity of their claims:
- is it in a reputable library? OR in Google, is it on the web site of a respected research institute or university?
- is the argument convincing and consistent with the data?
- are all known facts (known personally to be true) correct?
- are there plenty of traceable references?
- is the author well-respected within the scientific community?
- has it been peer-reviewed?
If I were researching a paper, then I would have to look up all my references impeccably. I don't, because I do not need that level of proof. But don't tell me that hearsay is anything like the same level of veracity as even a little intelligent research through Google. You've cited one piece of verifiable data so far on the subject of evolution, and it was WRONG. I notice you still haven't responded to it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is why I think Unitarianism looks so good.
viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My bad!! Guess I should have re-read the book first lol. what do you expect Im impatient. The word for the year of the gods is Shar and its Sumarian. Im not saying what the book says is so, but it was interesting reading. The book is "The 12th Planet" by Zecharia Sitchin. ;-D ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to bring up that point of being a skeptic so to show that there are practical limits to skepticism. I know you get what I mean and that is ok by me as I have to do the same thing myself. I dont have time or the equipment to duplicate experiments that probably took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform. I should have the same authority to accept something as valid that you have. Or are you saying that if someone such as a minister quotes an article or uses statistics from some scientist, that those quotes and stats are not to be believed? I think if you quote the conclusions of some scientific study for the purpose of making your point against it, that doesnt make the whole thing invalid any more than what you are quoting and saying. I resent the implication that ALL of my sources of information are intrinsically tainted as you have suggested. I am sure my IQ is high enough to be able to discern a valid source. I do check on things too and try to get to some of the articles this guy quotes to me so I can see for myself but it is just not a possibility to check them all. I hear conflicting testimony from many sources about global warming and I have concluded that it is NOT a fact that the planet is warming. Do you say then, that I have either an inadequately intelligent mind or that all my sources are wrong in what they conclude? I do have some sources I can quote about this one and some have some pretty good credentials. It is not a forgone conclusion of the "scientific community" that global warming is a fact. You know that in some cases both sides of some issues can be right? This might be one of them where it can depend on your method of research etc. I have seen where the same set of statistics were used to prove two different points of view; it is not impossible to do. Thanks for indulging me.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't by any means think you are wrong on everything. I only know you through the opinions you have expressed on this site. They have, however, been mostly controversial and often scientifically dubious; even you must admit that.
As a matter of fact, I am perfectly aware that global warming is by no means as cut and dried as it appears, and that both sides are guilty of employing bad science to push their agendas. So there I will not disagree with you, unless you say something that is blatantly wrong. Otherwise I might even support you.
It does bother me that you are not prepared to admit you are wrong on the question of Lucy. A simple, "I admit it, I was wrong," would do wonders for your credibility. As it is, the facts that you won't admit a mistake and keep changing the subject make it look like you are trying to evade the issue. Before you accuse me of the same thing, look at some of my most recent posts -- especially the ones on the meaning of the word "falsifiable". I was wrong, but I realised that if I refused to admit it, it would seriously damage my credibility in the eyes of anyone who knew, or took the time to look up, its true meaning.
>I have seen where the same set of statistics were used to prove two different points of view; it is not impossible to do.
Mathematically speaking, it is impossible. But I know what you mean: evidence can often be taken as supporting one side of a theory when in fact it could also support the other side. In that case, it is usual either to find more evidence that tips the balance one way or another, or admit that it is ambiguous.
Please, please, please could you use paragraphs. I wouldn't complain, but it makes your argument so much harder to follow if you don't. It's not just me being pedantic this time.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yes....... Use paragraphs or I will begin grading your usage and syntax.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... there is a wealth of information on several reputable, independent academic websites, and you should have no difficulty finding a deeper explanation in the palaeontology section of a decent library - but PLEASE use an independent, unaligned source. And you might like to explain WHY you were so firm that you 'knew for a fact' that 'Lucy' was a jawbone?
Turning to the particle physics experiment which you quote, the information you have given is not sufficient to identify precisely the study to which you are referring. If you can provide further details, I will be able to look it up myself.
Finally, on the subject of global warming, temperature records do clearly indicate that the Earth IS becoming warmer. The most convincing visual proof I have personally experienced is the dramatic shrinking of the alpine glaciers, but similar evidence is available from the Arctic and Antarctic, and from the Himalayan region where the situation is becoming critical for some communities. What is certainly open to argument is why this is happening - is it a natural phenomenon (there have been both large and small temperature oscillations in the past) or is it fuelled by excess production of greenhouse gases? So far as I am aware, no convincing proof has yet emerged to support either view - though it does seem logical to assume that greenhouse gas emissions will add to the problem, if only marginally.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1407a wrote:
he book is "The 12th Planet" by Zecharia Sitchin
Brian, I actually read that book when it first came out - about 40 years ago! It is full of what polite UK English calls "codswallop". At that time there was a spate of books which sought to prove that alian visitations to this planet are recorded in the bible. The most famous was von Daeniken's "Chariots of the Gods"; the most ridiculous was Sitchin's book which you have cited. I am truly amazed that it is still available. Do you have a reprint or did you pick it up in an antique book store?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the copies I have were printed in 1991. Im assuming they are reprints. IM not saying that these are gossiple, but the translations he gives are the actual translation of sumerian text and Babylonian. IM very aware of who Von Daeniken is. Altho his books are poo pooed, he didnt lie. Its like the Nazca lines, can you prove they werent made by aliens? Wheather they are right or not, there are some strange things that dont fit in the scheme of things and are swept aside cause they throw a wrench in the works.
Oh and I get a lot of books at yard sales. I read anything, I probably have more books in my bedroom than most adults have read in their entire lives.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1407a wrote:
I read anything, I probably have more books in my bedroom than most adults have read in their entire lives.
Brian, that is wonderful. The more books one has the better. My own personal library consists of about 1800 books, and the hard core is books that I bought when I was a teenager and in my early 20's.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey yeah I read all the stuff Von Daeniken wrote and always wondered why someone can't just take some time and (relative to what is spent on other less profound things) money and verify what he was finding, especially what he wrote of finding in those caves. Now as far as my religous beliefs are concerned, I never saw any problem with what Von Daeniken found.
I wonder if any of you have ever read a book/story called SIVA? It should certainly appeal to many of you since it was banned by the Catholic Church at one time.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Science versus belief 
