ChatterBank2 mins ago
Is Death Really The End?
To be fair, however, you must face the fact that the confusion is caused by the many religions that muddy the clear waters of Bible teachings with fallacies and legends. When you ignore the traditions and myths and stick to what the Bible actually says, you discover a teaching that makes sense.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. 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.
I'll try to answer you locusts but I'm not sure I understand you. I understand space a bit though.
1. Comets and asteroids are left over bits of the formation of the solar system. They have been around for billions, not thousands of years. Life hasn't evolved because we have yet to find an asteroid with conditions suitable for life (they don't have an atmosphere for a start) and the orbit of comets is just too wild for any life to adapt to.
2. As has already been mentioned, these objects are travelling at nowhere near the speed of light. I don't know where you got that idea from but it is wrong. If it were true that objects in space were travelling at light speed, we wouldn't be able to see any stars as they would be expanding away from us faster than the light could reach us.
3. Yes we have been bombarded. That's how the solar system was made. The last major bombardment was a few billion years ago though so no need to keep the cat in just yet.
From evidence garnered so far, it seems that Earth was hit by something large enough to form our moon once upon a time. This isn't a myth, the science supports it, and yet the Earth is still here. Chixculub is widely recognised as the KT event that helped to wipe out the dinosaurs and a large section of forest in Siberia was flattened in 1908.
Any of those objects could have carried water and/or the basic molecules needed to spark life on this planet. The difference between Earth and any other planets we've found so far is that Earth has the location to make it relatively easy. Remember, we only have ourselves as a basis for what life should look like.
You are being to closed minded.
1. Comets and asteroids are left over bits of the formation of the solar system. They have been around for billions, not thousands of years. Life hasn't evolved because we have yet to find an asteroid with conditions suitable for life (they don't have an atmosphere for a start) and the orbit of comets is just too wild for any life to adapt to.
2. As has already been mentioned, these objects are travelling at nowhere near the speed of light. I don't know where you got that idea from but it is wrong. If it were true that objects in space were travelling at light speed, we wouldn't be able to see any stars as they would be expanding away from us faster than the light could reach us.
3. Yes we have been bombarded. That's how the solar system was made. The last major bombardment was a few billion years ago though so no need to keep the cat in just yet.
From evidence garnered so far, it seems that Earth was hit by something large enough to form our moon once upon a time. This isn't a myth, the science supports it, and yet the Earth is still here. Chixculub is widely recognised as the KT event that helped to wipe out the dinosaurs and a large section of forest in Siberia was flattened in 1908.
Any of those objects could have carried water and/or the basic molecules needed to spark life on this planet. The difference between Earth and any other planets we've found so far is that Earth has the location to make it relatively easy. Remember, we only have ourselves as a basis for what life should look like.
You are being to closed minded.
Mojo-Jo-Jo
I'll try to answer you locusts but I'm not sure I understand you. I understand space a bit though
Think you very much for your long explanations and trying to give me some extra information
I appreciate the It
but I do not have a close mind
I am interested in space and the going on
it is so fascinating / subject/ but also so mind-boggling ?????????
of the complexity and emotions of the Milky Way's how rotate and intermingle to keep them self in heavens// but to me this is so fascinating
but I am a devout Christian and I do believe in the creator of the earth
Locusts, if you think anything as large as the sun has ever crashed into the earth, you are definitely safe in assuming that your imagination runs away with you.
//So why//planets and asteroids how they not produce life has we know it. ????//
As LazyGun says, because conditions on those planets are not right, but that’s not to say that those conditions aren’t right to produce a different form of life, nor that there are no other planets that do have the required conditions to produce life as we know it. There are an unimaginable number of planets in the universe – it’s thought 100 billion in our galaxy alone. There’s a big world out there – and I find it very sad that any human being willingly limits his own intellect to the inaccuracies of one ancient book. Perhaps you should try reading and learning from something other than the bible.
Mojo, //The first 3 answers are downright hostile and yet Goodlife is doing exactly what you are always asking them to do.//
Mine is one of the first three answers. Goodlife recommends we stick to what the bible actually says, but he doesn’t do that, so not hostile – a simple fact. And he isn’t doing what I’ve asked him to do which is to explain a bit about his religion. He’s still preaching.
//So why//planets and asteroids how they not produce life has we know it. ????//
As LazyGun says, because conditions on those planets are not right, but that’s not to say that those conditions aren’t right to produce a different form of life, nor that there are no other planets that do have the required conditions to produce life as we know it. There are an unimaginable number of planets in the universe – it’s thought 100 billion in our galaxy alone. There’s a big world out there – and I find it very sad that any human being willingly limits his own intellect to the inaccuracies of one ancient book. Perhaps you should try reading and learning from something other than the bible.
Mojo, //The first 3 answers are downright hostile and yet Goodlife is doing exactly what you are always asking them to do.//
Mine is one of the first three answers. Goodlife recommends we stick to what the bible actually says, but he doesn’t do that, so not hostile – a simple fact. And he isn’t doing what I’ve asked him to do which is to explain a bit about his religion. He’s still preaching.
I think the hostility comes from the OP once again preaching - we should throw out all evidence that contradicts the bible. Drives me nutty :)
@Locust
Thanks for your attempts at clarification. I am sorry,I think I am still being a bit dim. This might be because I did not back read all the threads prior to that post.
Lets try another approach shall we?
Here is what I understood by your post - That somehow the fact that no life as we recognise it has yet been found on these various asteroids and exoplanets somehow invalidates the idea of evolution and a naturalistic start to life and supports the idea of a supernatural creator entity.
Is that what you meant? If not, I have misunderstood your post.
It is true that we have not detected life as we recognise it outside of our own planet as yet. Life as we do know it, ie us and plants and animals on earth, have evolved to suit the conditions on earth - water, atmospheric mixture, gravity, distance from the sun. So life may well develop on other planets, but it will not necessarily mimic development here.
As to why we have not yet found life - the instruments we use to detect the chemistry of planets and signs of life have to evolve themselves, and only very recently have they become sophisticated enough to offer meaningful data on this issue.
@Locust
Thanks for your attempts at clarification. I am sorry,I think I am still being a bit dim. This might be because I did not back read all the threads prior to that post.
Lets try another approach shall we?
Here is what I understood by your post - That somehow the fact that no life as we recognise it has yet been found on these various asteroids and exoplanets somehow invalidates the idea of evolution and a naturalistic start to life and supports the idea of a supernatural creator entity.
Is that what you meant? If not, I have misunderstood your post.
It is true that we have not detected life as we recognise it outside of our own planet as yet. Life as we do know it, ie us and plants and animals on earth, have evolved to suit the conditions on earth - water, atmospheric mixture, gravity, distance from the sun. So life may well develop on other planets, but it will not necessarily mimic development here.
As to why we have not yet found life - the instruments we use to detect the chemistry of planets and signs of life have to evolve themselves, and only very recently have they become sophisticated enough to offer meaningful data on this issue.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
From some of these statements it would seem that anyone with a measure of intelligence would readily accept evolution. After all, to do so would mean that one is “enlightened” rather than “stupid.” Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. As many scientists have private doubts.
It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
Only Jehovah God knows why he made all these things. But from man’s standpoint, could there have been a better reason? Does not what you have seen of the physical universe make you stand in awe of its grand Creator as seen by the clip- “the dust that sings”.
Some are moved with appreciation for his love toward us in providing such things to enjoy, along with other blessings of life.
But what I have learned here, leaves me with a couple of questions. Have not many generations of astronomers only scratched the surface of what there is to learn about the universe? And since many of the phenomena that you have spoken about happen so rarely, maybe only once or twice in a lifetime, does it not make you feel short-changed, so to speak, that you cannot live long enough to see all the wonders of creation?
That is just one more reason why it does not make sense that God made man to live only a few score years. Why, in a thousand lifetimes we would not run out of things to enjoy watching and learning about in the marvellous heavens of Jehovah’s handiwork. How reasonable, then, is the Bible’s viewpoint that God put man on the earth to live forever.”—Rev. 21:4.
It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
Only Jehovah God knows why he made all these things. But from man’s standpoint, could there have been a better reason? Does not what you have seen of the physical universe make you stand in awe of its grand Creator as seen by the clip- “the dust that sings”.
Some are moved with appreciation for his love toward us in providing such things to enjoy, along with other blessings of life.
But what I have learned here, leaves me with a couple of questions. Have not many generations of astronomers only scratched the surface of what there is to learn about the universe? And since many of the phenomena that you have spoken about happen so rarely, maybe only once or twice in a lifetime, does it not make you feel short-changed, so to speak, that you cannot live long enough to see all the wonders of creation?
That is just one more reason why it does not make sense that God made man to live only a few score years. Why, in a thousand lifetimes we would not run out of things to enjoy watching and learning about in the marvellous heavens of Jehovah’s handiwork. How reasonable, then, is the Bible’s viewpoint that God put man on the earth to live forever.”—Rev. 21:4.
@Goodlife
From your last post. you said this;
That is just one more reason why it does not make sense that God made man to live only a few score years. .......How reasonable, then, is the Bible’s viewpoint that God put man on the earth to live forever.”—Rev. 21:4."
Not doing a very good job then is he? Where are these immortal humans that god created? Oh, thats right - pushing up daisies, like all mortall life.
You also said this
"t is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated."
More tripe, and a logical fallacy too.We have observed evolution - it is observed and duplicated every day in laboratories around the world. What we see around us now is best explained by evolution. Discerning and educated people of faith accept and understand evolution - they just claim that evolution is gods chosen mechanism. It seems to me that only those who might be termed "Young Earth Creationists" really have a problem with the science, and they stand isolated, like Canute, fruitlessly attempting to influence the inexorable tide.
You also posted this, in an effort to support your view;
"Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. As many scientists have private doubts."
All that serves to prove is that all humans can be prone to bias, and will seek to refute evidence that does not support their world view. You can be as highly educated as you like, but that does not make you an expert in everything. All this sentence does is reinforce the very important point that we should not accept "Arguments from Authority" - rather, we should examine the data and the evidence supporting a position and make our minds up on that basis, rather than believing something to be true just because of the person who has told us.
Of course, arguing for the existence of god, the immortal soul, the rejection of evolution in favour of creationism - all of these positions are solely reliant on arguments from authority, because that is all they have. You attempt to assert the authority of the bible, without questioning its inerrancy
From your last post. you said this;
That is just one more reason why it does not make sense that God made man to live only a few score years. .......How reasonable, then, is the Bible’s viewpoint that God put man on the earth to live forever.”—Rev. 21:4."
Not doing a very good job then is he? Where are these immortal humans that god created? Oh, thats right - pushing up daisies, like all mortall life.
You also said this
"t is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated."
More tripe, and a logical fallacy too.We have observed evolution - it is observed and duplicated every day in laboratories around the world. What we see around us now is best explained by evolution. Discerning and educated people of faith accept and understand evolution - they just claim that evolution is gods chosen mechanism. It seems to me that only those who might be termed "Young Earth Creationists" really have a problem with the science, and they stand isolated, like Canute, fruitlessly attempting to influence the inexorable tide.
You also posted this, in an effort to support your view;
"Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. As many scientists have private doubts."
All that serves to prove is that all humans can be prone to bias, and will seek to refute evidence that does not support their world view. You can be as highly educated as you like, but that does not make you an expert in everything. All this sentence does is reinforce the very important point that we should not accept "Arguments from Authority" - rather, we should examine the data and the evidence supporting a position and make our minds up on that basis, rather than believing something to be true just because of the person who has told us.
Of course, arguing for the existence of god, the immortal soul, the rejection of evolution in favour of creationism - all of these positions are solely reliant on arguments from authority, because that is all they have. You attempt to assert the authority of the bible, without questioning its inerrancy
LG, //It seems to me that only those who might be termed "Young Earth Creationists" really have a problem with the science, //
.... which is why some of them have a tendancy to conveniently move the goalposts by suggesting that in one instance - the creation - when the bible mentions the word 'day', it doesn't mean 24 hours, but a much longer period of time. Science is backing them into a corner.
.... which is why some of them have a tendancy to conveniently move the goalposts by suggesting that in one instance - the creation - when the bible mentions the word 'day', it doesn't mean 24 hours, but a much longer period of time. Science is backing them into a corner.
Hi guys and// ladies of courseI
try to be honest with you in the best way I can put my words together I am known professor//
and I willing to learn
you asked me look at //
videos to understand your point of view
I view the information // you recommended
Maybe I have sprouting to off// about the good book is
but that is my be leaf --
scientists-- archeologists has upheld all the findings to confirm the reputation -- Bible // it spoke of- and that some and most things did happened
but in the same way you have been trying to say that science have all the answers
yes -- scientific has gone forward by leaps //
within the last hundred years has been amazing and with telescopes-- which can reach into the sky-- rockets to the moon?
is fantastic to give us the view of the planets around us.
Yes- the world as we know it did take more than 6000 years
earth 4.54 billion years --------ok
problemhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago--ok
who or what calls a big bang ??????? To start life
even if life - drop in from another universe ??? how start life
and to answer another question-- do I believe in life// out beyond the cosmos--
yes much more superior to us// with lot-s of knowledge/ and understanding ,// somewhere
http://
try to be honest with you in the best way I can put my words together I am known professor//
and I willing to learn
you asked me look at //
videos to understand your point of view
I view the information // you recommended
Maybe I have sprouting to off// about the good book is
but that is my be leaf --
scientists-- archeologists has upheld all the findings to confirm the reputation -- Bible // it spoke of- and that some and most things did happened
but in the same way you have been trying to say that science have all the answers
yes -- scientific has gone forward by leaps //
within the last hundred years has been amazing and with telescopes-- which can reach into the sky-- rockets to the moon?
is fantastic to give us the view of the planets around us.
Yes- the world as we know it did take more than 6000 years
earth 4.54 billion years --------ok
problemhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago--ok
who or what calls a big bang ??????? To start life
even if life - drop in from another universe ??? how start life
and to answer another question-- do I believe in life// out beyond the cosmos--
yes much more superior to us// with lot-s of knowledge/ and understanding ,// somewhere
http://
@locusts.
Again, apologies if I misunderstand your points - but I understand from your post that you accept the following;
1.That the Earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago.
2.That the Universe was formed around 14 biliion years ago.
Would that be correct?
And you ask the quite reasonable question - what was the first cause? And the answer is that. right now, we do not know- we can speculate and theorise, and some of those theories are supported by observation and evidence, but we still do not know for certain.
That does not however offer proof of god. All that does is give god a gap, of around a millisecond or so, in which they could work. It seems unreasonable to me to conclude that just because we do not at the moment know the definitive cause of the creation of the universe, we should just assume that a supernatural entity caused it all...
Again, apologies if I misunderstand your points - but I understand from your post that you accept the following;
1.That the Earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago.
2.That the Universe was formed around 14 biliion years ago.
Would that be correct?
And you ask the quite reasonable question - what was the first cause? And the answer is that. right now, we do not know- we can speculate and theorise, and some of those theories are supported by observation and evidence, but we still do not know for certain.
That does not however offer proof of god. All that does is give god a gap, of around a millisecond or so, in which they could work. It seems unreasonable to me to conclude that just because we do not at the moment know the definitive cause of the creation of the universe, we should just assume that a supernatural entity caused it all...
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Crosswords27 mins ago
