A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

dicktice · 2004-04-15 09:02:53

Please don't mistake interest, for wariness.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-15 23:40:33

and try to force it upon people.
*So these people aren't entitled to their opinions and beliefs?
If their viewpoints and beliefs disagree with -yours-, are you suggesting they should be deprived of expressing those viewpoints and beliefs because otherwise they are "forcing people"?
And what about the oft-spoken complaints on the part of religionists, that they are being "forced" by secularists to consider the theory of evolution?
--Cindy
(I'm -not- religious or a creationist).

I agree. I visit a couple of science forums and it's always the samething. Bully the YEC person. I am entitled to my view of 6 day creation. Just the way God said He did it. I don't force my views upon anyone.

By the way, I'm the webmaster of YEC Headquarters.

If my website annoys, then don't go to it.

dickbill · 2004-04-16 09:07:51

Hi all, for those interested, I finally got a job, in Dallas, TX, not in Miami, bye bye palm trees, ocean, tropical feelings, bye bye dreaming...

About this interesting topic on religions, I talked about it in another thread but it has been mostly misinterpreted, which I take the credit for my imperfect use of the english language. Here i'll just say that probably the concept of God that we use today is not very different of the pre-historic concept of supernatural powers, God of water, fire etc, when only water, fire etc, were perceived. The old testament has just added and then associated the concept of "God of the Universe" with the emerging concept of "Universe".
I think that the concept can still evolve to something new by the way.

In the excellent book "the Mind in the Cave : consciousness and the origins of art" of DAVID LEWIS-WILLIAMS, the world of supernatural conceived by prehistoric men, is considered as a byproduct, an artifact, of Homo Sapiens Sapiens mind (as opposed to the Neanderthal's mind, said the author) in the states of "altered consciousness" (altered by drugs or chamanic practices for example). There, I don't agree. Even if prehistoric men imagined a naive invisible world populated by "spirits" how can he be so sure that the concept of spirit represent nothing more than an artifact ?
But that's a good book anyway, worth to read it.

Palomar · 2004-04-16 09:28:28

Dickbill: "Hi all, for those interested, I finally got a job, in Dallas, TX, not in Miami, bye bye palm trees, ocean, tropical feelings, bye bye dreaming..."

*Hello Texas pit bar-be-que, cowboy boots, southern drawls and mechanical bull riding! Nice to see you back, dickbill. [By the way, you might want to accustom yourself to saying "Hi ya'all"...you'll be hearing plenty of that :laugh: ] And look at the bright side...goodbye Miami, goodbye hurricanes.

Dickbill: "Here i'll just say that probably the concept of God that we use today is not very different of the pre-historic concept of supernatural powers, God of water, fire etc, when only water, fire etc, were perceived. The old testament has just added and then associated the concept of "God of the Universe" with the emerging concept of "Universe".
I think that the concept can still evolve to something new by the way."

*Perhaps. Depends, though. Evangelical Christians, for example, believe their bible is the infallable (error-less) word of God and that their God is UNchanging. Ah well, not my gig anyway.

Carl G. Jung's ideas (symbols, archetypes, psychology) are of interest to me. It's been a while since I've read his material, etc., though (need to brush up on it). Anyway, I think he's one of the few people who has come close to explaining the "why" and "how" of religious thinking.

--Cindy

Algol · 2004-04-16 09:35:43

A quick question.

Where does the 6000 year figure come from?
And how are the creationists so sure its been 6000 as opposed to say 7000, or 18000 etc?

~Eternal~ · 2004-04-16 15:38:54

Its the Biblical chronoliges added up, of course theres no evidence for anyone before Abraham mentioned in the Bible to be real person.

I have to warn New Mars, ikester is known for spreading false information, propaganda, spamming, flaming, and resistance to *gasp* learning!

Euler · 2004-04-16 18:58:16

Its the Biblical chronoliges added up, of course theres no evidence for anyone before Abraham mentioned in the Bible to be real person.

Yes, a famous bible scholar added up the dates and came up with 4004 BC as the year in which the world was created. Actually, determining the creation year according to the bible is not all that hard because a large portion of Genesis is just a list of how old people were before they had their first son, so you just add up those numbers.

I have to warn New Mars, ikester is known for spreading false information, propaganda, spamming, flaming, and resistance to *gasp* learning!

If he acts like that he can be dealt with. But he deserves a chance to show he can act reasonably before you start flaming him.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-16 21:57:47

Its the Biblical chronoliges added up, of course theres no evidence for anyone before Abraham mentioned in the Bible to be real person.
I have to warn New Mars, ikester is known for spreading false information, propaganda, spamming, flaming, and resistance to *gasp* learning!

LOL, and who might this be that knows so much about me? Maybe someone from christianforums.com?
And I do believe that people can make up their owns minds about me. This is not a mind control game you know.
And the accusations about flaming etc... christiansforums.com does not put up that sort of stuff. Can you explain why I have not been warned, not even once, if all these things you claim are true?
In fact, if anyone wants to find out who is telling the truth about what eternal is saying. Go to christianforums.com and e-mail the owner of the site and ask if I'm a trouble maker that's been warned. I'm not afraid of the truth. I do believe the owner's name is Erwin.

By the way, was it me who posted this thread to start something?

ikester7579 · 2004-04-16 22:18:04

One more thing. I'm not making this one of my regular forums. I stick to christian forums mainly. But as any webmaster knows, each site comes with a control panel that keeps info on where your visitors are coming from. That's how I found this site. The link the thread starter left on the first post is logged into my control panel that tells me where the visitors are coming from. It gives this sites www address and how many visitors have clicked on the link. I check up on where my visitors are coming from if there's a bunch of visits. From here there has been more than 10 visits. So I looked and found this thread based solely on my site. So I looked to see what's being said. It was common stuff that I see at just about every forum.
But what made me join to post was what a couple of people were saying about: what's wrong with a different point of veiw? Which is exactly how I feel so I had to make a comment. Otherwise, I would have left and not posted, nor joined.

Anyway, I have to many irons in the fire, building my website etc..., to add another forum to my list.
So if anyone has a question about my site, you can e-mail me here: issac@yecheadquarters.org

I may come back to visit. But it won't be to answer eternal's questions.

Adrian · 2004-04-17 04:24:45

Euler is right - you may disagree with ikester but there is no need for flames or ad hominems, Eternal.

~Eternal~ · 2004-04-17 08:22:10

I was not neccessarily flaming him, but I was warning New Mars.
Its not that I want Ikester gone, its just that he causes alot of problems and has a slight "My Way or The Highway" opinion.

dickbill · 2004-04-17 11:31:15

*Hello Texas pit bar-be-que, cowboy boots, southern drawls and mechanical bull riding! Nice to see you back, dickbill. [By the way, you might want to accustom yourself to saying "Hi ya'all"...you'll be hearing plenty of that :laugh: ]

Hi Cindy, with my french accent and New Yorker background, the texans sure gonna be impressed.
Already, in a bar restaurant in Dallas, I have ordered a good old yankee beer, Samuel Adams, the best beer in America. And they didn't have it !
Once there, I also plan to buy a telescope, either a 6' refractor or a 8' maybe 10' reflector. You gonna be jealous.

Evangelical Christians, for example, believe their bible is the infallable (error-less) word of God and that their God is UNchanging.

The bible itself might be constant, our interpretation is changing as we evolve with new concepts and ideas. Its not much the bible than the evangelists who don't want to change.

Palomar · 2004-04-17 13:01:26

Once there, I also plan to buy a telescope, either a 6' refractor or a 8' maybe 10' reflector. You gonna be jealous.

*Monsieur, vous êtes cruel. No plus de flagellation avec vous.

---
By the way, you have interesting comments regarding *interpretations* changing. That word itself is considered something of a red flag -and- red herring amongst evangelicals. They seem not to like that word, based on my childhood experiences.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-04-17 14:25:09

Once there, I also plan to buy a telescope, either a 6' refractor or a 8' maybe 10' reflector. You gonna be jealous.
*Monsieur, vous êtes cruel. No plus de flagellation avec vous.

No No, we need to flagellate together, this is good !
Then we ask forgiveness to God and once clean, we go back to our little sin. I am not sure Dubya flagellates enough for example.

Out of topic : yeah....I am cruel, 8 or 10 inches, hehehe, you have a 6' dobsonian Orion if i remember well, Cindy (turn the knife into the wound). There is this incredible equatorial Orion ATLAS 10' but I think the Meade 10' LXD55 optical is superior.
By The time I decide, probably new telescopes will be on the market. People start to mention 8' refractors now (not apochromatic), amazing.

Alt2War · 2004-04-17 15:14:34

What has happened in the past (evolution, creation, whatever) makes no sense to the science and technology as it is yet. I've mentioned the example of orbital mechanics: If Mars began existing hundred or trillions of years ago, that doesn't make any difference for the orbit it goes, taken the perceptions of it's velocity and radius this is determined.
Eg when life is found on Mars, it doesn't say anything about it's origin, it could be created or evoluated. Nobody can build an experimental universe to test the cosmological and evolutional hypotheses that are worked with today.
That's my point, and beside that there are much problems with the theories developed, there exist different variants, and so on. This are reasons that I feel free to hold an other belief about the origin of the universe.
For calculating on orbital mechanics, experimental design for detecting life, and so on, it doesn't make any difference.
I don't want to be pedantic to Newton or anybody. I don't understand your point in this case.

Actually, I've written many artificial life experiments. Evolution is easily simulated.

Alt2War · 2004-04-17 15:32:46

and try to force it upon people.
*So these people aren't entitled to their opinions and beliefs?
If their viewpoints and beliefs disagree with -yours-, are you suggesting they should be deprived of expressing those viewpoints and beliefs because otherwise they are "forcing people"?
And what about the oft-spoken complaints on the part of religionists, that they are being "forced" by secularists to consider the theory of evolution?
--Cindy
(I'm -not- religious or a creationist).
I agree. I visit a couple of science forums and it's always the samething. Bully the YEC person. I am entitled to my view of 6 day creation. Just the way God said He did it. I don't force my views upon anyone.
By the way, I'm the webmaster of YEC Headquarters.
If my website annoys, then don't go to it.

Let's say I wrote a poem with a line that said:

"And she had stars in her eyes"

Now, by that line did I try to infer that the subject of the poem actually had burning balls of gass in her skull?

No, it's obvious that Im using language in a creative manner in the hopes of conveying more than literal word use could provide.

Language is a tricky thing. Early in comuter science, some folks tried to get computers to understand written human language.

To this day they have failed.

the problem? Humans are ambigious with their language.

One attempt was made to create a language that could not possibly be ambigious, come to find out that humans would find ways to make it so.

It seems that the more vague we are with our language, the more we appreciate it.

So lets say you wanted to explain just even the current days version of creation, right or wrong, to pesants 3000 years ago.

How would you convey it to them in a manner thay have even the slightest hope of understanding.

Would you explain to them the details of quantum phisics, relativity, and calculus?

It would take volumes to explain such matters to the average american, who actually have some social and educational basis to work from. Sheep herders dont even have that.

So to Literally describe the creation of the universe to sheep herders 300 years ago would be a herculean task, and many volumes to record.

Paper and clay tablets were not so easy to come by, so the best bet might be to condense it down a bit.

So say you wanted to get the creation down into a few chapters, using analogy, allegory, and fable would be a great way to convey the basic concepts in a manner that could easily be understood by people with very little education.

In addition, Hebrew is one of THE most vague languages created. In fact what the King James Version calls God in Genisis is in reality translated into "The Goddesses" and is a matter of much intepritation and speculation in many religious circles.

In short, to take genisis literally is as silly as taking a poem literally. You in the same stroke become totally misinformed and destroy the inherit beauty of the work.

But your free to believe whatever you want

ikester7579 · 2004-04-17 23:46:15

Remember, I did not start the thread. So don't attack me through what I believe. For if I wrote, what you wrote, about what you believe. You'd take offense to it. Cause you know what your trying to call God invertingly. And if I do the same to you and what you believe, would it be fair?
Your attempts to flame and then cover it up by using poems etc... Is not a very good attempt. And I won't lower myself to the level you'd like by responding in kind.

Euler · 2004-04-18 00:43:48

Actually, I've written many artificial life experiments. Evolution is easily simulated.

How do you know if your simulations are accurate? There is not really a lot of experimental data on this.

Alt2War · 2004-04-18 14:20:37

Actually, I've written many artificial life experiments. Evolution is easily simulated.
How do you know if your simulations are accurate? There is not really a lot of experimental data on this.

Whats right,whats correct, and whats true are all very different things.

The simulation was correct, because it succeeded in fulfilling the paramiters I had hoped to see.

Random mutation in virtual cells led to more stable communities. As these communities compted for resources and in effect changed the nature of the environment, new communities more suited to the environment emerged through mutation.

The simulation was right, because I am working under the unserstanding that natural selection is the agent of the creation of the diverse life here on earth.

The simulation was the truth because I found beauty in it.

Alt2War · 2004-04-18 14:27:08

Remember, I did not start the thread. So don't attack me through what I believe. For if I wrote, what you wrote, about what you believe. You'd take offense to it. Cause you know what your trying to call God invertingly. And if I do the same to you and what you believe, would it be fair?
Your attempts to flame and then cover it up by using poems etc... Is not a very good attempt. And I won't lower myself to the level you'd like by responding in kind.

No flame here, just trying to express a view counter to yours. I would welcome you to refute it. I would not be offended if you decided to argue against natural selection and phisics, as arguement and doubt are the basis of science.

Whats RIGHT whats CORRECT and whats TRUE are all different things.

I think what was written in Genisis can be considered TRUE withough being RIGHT.

It is my personal opinion that to take Genisis Literally is a violation of the 2nd Commandment, Belittles God, and makes one blind to quite a bit of the beauty in the works.

ikester7579 · 2004-04-19 02:36:33

LOL, nice try and recovery.
But when someone is taught that there are no absolute rights or no absolute wrongs, and a lie is just someone's else's opinion. There's really nothing to argue about. I believe God's word is true, and you don't. I have made my choice and you've made yours. I accept your choice and do not push my views upon you. But why is it you cannot accept mine? And why you think it's so important that I accept scientific views? Like I said before, it's not a mind control game.

If I post my views on this forum, is it forcing you to think the way I do?
But yet you seem to think a challenge of some sort is in order. Why? Do you want to prove me wrong, or God?

Alt2War · 2004-04-19 06:55:03

Obviously there is no room for debate as you are completely closed minded.

Perhaps you could clear somthing up for me, As the sun was not created until the 4th day... How was a Day defined?

Without a sun, how can one have a day?

Did step 1-3 of creation take exactly 24 hours each?

Or is the term "Day" used by god metiphoricly as a representation of a arbitrary amount of time?

bolbuyk · 2004-04-19 06:56:03

Explanation of what is written in the Bible is a discussion that runs through this. IMO we should accept God's word as it is, ti God tells us many, many things that are technically or naturely 'impossible' as far as we know yet. Beside that there are a lot of things that are considered not likely by the main-stream scientists. Believing God's Word is thrustworthy includes acceptance of these things. Taking into account a God exists Who can make the impossible possible, there exists no problem (cheap solution, you say? It's not a solution, it's just a consequence of this faith).

To me, interpretation is not something red that makes me angry. Of course, there is a point. But always should be refered back to the Bible to understand the Bible in it's right way. I was not observing the creation, so I cannot tell in detail what exactly happened. But stretching days till that are millions or billions of years, that's really beyond the limit. This also has theological consequences further on when reading the Bible. IMO you would miss much of what God wants to say.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-19 06:59:54

Alt2War:

God created light on the first day: Without sun. A possible explanation is that the light came from one direction. The Earth spinned, so there was the first day. Later God replaced the source of light by creating the sun. Maybe we could say a new Divine idea, even as He decided after the 6-day creation to create a woman.

dicktice · 2004-04-19 09:03:35

I KNEW you were going to insinuate this sort of biblical guff into your posts. You're obviously just making this up as you go along. Who needs your vapourings? For God's sake, cut the crap!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-04-15 09:02:53

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#27 2004-04-15 23:40:33

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#28 2004-04-16 09:07:51

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#29 2004-04-16 09:28:28

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#30 2004-04-16 09:35:43

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#31 2004-04-16 15:38:54

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#32 2004-04-16 18:58:16

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#33 2004-04-16 21:57:47

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#34 2004-04-16 22:18:04

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#35 2004-04-17 04:24:45

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#36 2004-04-17 08:22:10

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#37 2004-04-17 11:31:15

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#38 2004-04-17 13:01:26

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#39 2004-04-17 14:25:09

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#40 2004-04-17 15:14:34

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#41 2004-04-17 15:32:46

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#42 2004-04-17 23:46:15

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#43 2004-04-18 00:43:48

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#44 2004-04-18 14:20:37

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#45 2004-04-18 14:27:08

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#46 2004-04-19 02:36:33

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#47 2004-04-19 06:55:03

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#48 2004-04-19 06:56:03

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#49 2004-04-19 06:59:54

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

#50 2004-04-19 09:03:35

Re: A "Yes These People Actually Exist Moment" - Phyllis Reincarnated.

Board footer