ChatterBank2 mins ago
Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion
I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. 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.
Mikey - How long do you believe life began on Earth according to Islam? Obviously your first post is referring to JD’s question about if religious people believe in their books literally. Although he only mentioned Christianity. But you added Islam there. So I would like to know what Muslims believe about it according to your knowledge.
Anyone read 'Chariots of the Gods : Was God an Astronaut'?
/// All over the world there are fantastic ruins and improbable objects which cannot be explained by conventional theories of history, archaeology, and religion. Why, for instance, do the world's sacred books describe Gods who came down from the sky in fiery chariots and always promised to return? How could an ancient Sanskrit text contain an account which could only be of a journey in an alien craft? Compare photographs of American space centre launch sites to the constructions on the plains of Nazca in Peru. In order to understand the mysteries which Erich Von Daniken has cataloqued we must go back to these ancient relics with an open mind. We must call in the resources and experience of sciences other than archaeology. Read Von Daniken's classic work and make up your own mind. ///
/// All over the world there are fantastic ruins and improbable objects which cannot be explained by conventional theories of history, archaeology, and religion. Why, for instance, do the world's sacred books describe Gods who came down from the sky in fiery chariots and always promised to return? How could an ancient Sanskrit text contain an account which could only be of a journey in an alien craft? Compare photographs of American space centre launch sites to the constructions on the plains of Nazca in Peru. In order to understand the mysteries which Erich Von Daniken has cataloqued we must go back to these ancient relics with an open mind. We must call in the resources and experience of sciences other than archaeology. Read Von Daniken's classic work and make up your own mind. ///
APG...von Daniken is a complete fraud and charlatan, and does not deserve to be included in any serious science-based discussion. To quote Carl Sagan, a real scientist :::
"That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken "
He is as believable as Uri Geller !
"That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken "
He is as believable as Uri Geller !
Most if not all of evd's claims have been demolished utterly by experts who understand the subject. For example when the 'mysterious appearance of identical pyramids' in different aparts of the world is analysed and their development traced by archaeologists it becomes apparent that they are completely unrelated other than obeying the same physical rules.
I don't know the exact answer Naomi. But as Isam is full of daft superstitions, like all religions, its hardly likely that Muslims are going to come to the same conclusion as David Attenborough, is it ?
You claim to have read lots of books on religion...perhaps you could give the definitive answer !
You claim to have read lots of books on religion...perhaps you could give the definitive answer !
Mikey, My answer would be that as science progresses, Islamic scholars burn the midnight oil in an attempt to prove that their literature details prior knowledge – and with much manipulation of the texts, they do so – at least to the satisfaction of their fellow adherents. Keyplus tells us it contains information yet to be discovered by science. Now that really is something, don’t you think? Got to wonder how he knows.
Incidentally, Mikey, best you don’t attempt to debate subjects of which you know nothing. Very wise. And I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate. I’m serious.
Jom, //I exaggerate...slightly.//
You exaggerate greatly.
Incidentally, Mikey, best you don’t attempt to debate subjects of which you know nothing. Very wise. And I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate. I’m serious.
Jom, //I exaggerate...slightly.//
You exaggerate greatly.
Design goal: Produce a tall structure, visible for many miles, capable of withstanding floods, storms, earthquakes, using lifting equipment made out of wood (metal is far too scarce and, thus, expensive).
From a position of total ignorance, illiteracy and inability to travel to other parts of the planet (in the bronze/iron age), using only your intuition what would be a good shape? Tall and thin might fall over in a quake. Vertical sides would demand a lot of building material if it was layers and solid at the core. A hollow box would force a vaulted wooden roof, which would not last forever, tge way stone does. Also storm winds pose a challenge for vertical faces.
Pyramid is about the only logical shape left, after eliminating all the shapes which would likely fail.
Convergent design solutions in Egypt, Mexico, Vietnam, Solsbury Hill and wherever else.
IMHO, of course.
From a position of total ignorance, illiteracy and inability to travel to other parts of the planet (in the bronze/iron age), using only your intuition what would be a good shape? Tall and thin might fall over in a quake. Vertical sides would demand a lot of building material if it was layers and solid at the core. A hollow box would force a vaulted wooden roof, which would not last forever, tge way stone does. Also storm winds pose a challenge for vertical faces.
Pyramid is about the only logical shape left, after eliminating all the shapes which would likely fail.
Convergent design solutions in Egypt, Mexico, Vietnam, Solsbury Hill and wherever else.
IMHO, of course.
@mikey4444
I am sure EVD *sincerely believed* in the things he wrote in his books. He looked at evidence which was freely available to the rest of humanity (subject to flying halfway around the world at a time when flying to Spain on holiday still impressed our peers). He drew various conclusions from the archaeological remains which, judging by the enthusiatic reception of his books, others would have drawn the same conclusions and kicked themselves for not having got there first. (Book deal; lecture circuit; gravy train for life etc.)
To call him a fraud is to say he made the whole thing up, on purpose, *knowing he was in the wrong*.
I always attempt to distinguish between someone who is lying and someone who is merely delusional. I believe EVD was delusional.
You, however, describe him as a convicted fraudster. I can visit Wikipedia in a trice but I don't like being forced to make a detour of what may turn into tens of minutes, so this had better be true.
I am sure EVD *sincerely believed* in the things he wrote in his books. He looked at evidence which was freely available to the rest of humanity (subject to flying halfway around the world at a time when flying to Spain on holiday still impressed our peers). He drew various conclusions from the archaeological remains which, judging by the enthusiatic reception of his books, others would have drawn the same conclusions and kicked themselves for not having got there first. (Book deal; lecture circuit; gravy train for life etc.)
To call him a fraud is to say he made the whole thing up, on purpose, *knowing he was in the wrong*.
I always attempt to distinguish between someone who is lying and someone who is merely delusional. I believe EVD was delusional.
You, however, describe him as a convicted fraudster. I can visit Wikipedia in a trice but I don't like being forced to make a detour of what may turn into tens of minutes, so this had better be true.
