If God doesn't exist...

[hobelim]

I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.

Scientific discoveries have effectively disproven the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis but since the story is not about the creation of the universe, solar system, first humans, animals or plants on earth science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.

 

[ChrisL]

I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.

Scientific discoveries have effectively disproven the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis but since the story is not about the creation of the universe, solar system, first humans, animals or plants on earth science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.

It is about all of those things. Lol. Have you ever read the Bible?

 

[ChrisL]

People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.

 

[hobelim]

I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.

Scientific discoveries have effectively disproven the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis but since the story is not about the creation of the universe, solar system, first humans, animals or plants on earth science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.

It is about all of those things. Lol. Have you ever read the Bible?

Everything depends upon how one looks at it.

When it is written that God said let there be light and there was light and the light separated the darkness it is actually a figurative depiction of the time when the law was given as a light that teaches people to distinguish between clean and unclean, good and evil, true and false, light and darkness, life and death.

Every other recorded act of God during the creation of heaven and earth has a deeper level of meaning that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used including the subject of heaven and earth, the world above and the world below.

 

[hobelim]

People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.

The NT clearly states that Jesus spoke only in parables to crowds but explained everything clearly only to his disciples in private and even then they had trouble comprehending. Whatever he said to them in private was never written down in plain language..

Why would you find it surprising that the NT itself was written in the same way that Jesus spoke and taught which is in the same tradition as the OT was written?

however many people have been deceived into believing that a talking serpent is an invisible disembodied entity that tries to enter people minds in order to trick them into doing naughty things they all probably learned that superstitious nonsense from an actual talking serpent who is only invisible to those whose eyes have been blinded.


The manual of discipline of the dead sea scrolls clearly shows that there was hidden meaning in the law that was to be kept secret from froward people for fear of the revelation inducing apostasy.



Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.


No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].


Manual of Discipline

 

[Boss]

Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs. BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days. That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science. So you are wrong.

Humans have ALWAYS done that and they still do that. Which is MY point... there's a reason humans do that and no other species does. We have it in our DNA... it's an inherent thing that makes us what we are. We are spiritually connected to something greater than ourselves.... we always have been and always will be. We can't simply pretend like that doesn't matter and it's all made up nonsense... that doesn't comport with rationality.

We are inspired by something to be more than what we are. We have the inspiration to learn and grow and expand on what we know. This stems from our spiritual awareness of something greater than ourselves. And yes... this spiritual awareness that we inherently have as humans often manifests itself into supernatural beliefs in things that aren't real... religions that are false... concocted notions by men who are grappling with their own spiritual understanding.

You can understand HOW science works all day long... do you know WHY science works? Why does a molecule of oxygen compel itself to bond with two molecules of hydrogen when it doesn't have to? If it didn't, we couldn't have water.... but it does... why? Why do certain atomic particles become electrically charged while others don't? What IS electricity? What IS light? We know what they do and how they work... but WHY? You see... there is nothing in the laws of physics which says it HAS to be that way, it just is. So while science is very useful at explaining HOW the universe works, it cannot explain WHY.

That means nothing at all. Yes, we are natural "story tellers." We feel a need to explain that which we don't understand, such as labeling things as "good" and "evil." I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.

Ask yourself, do other living things in nature recognize "good" and "evil"? Where do you believe that comes from? It's not found elsewhere in nature. It comes from our spiritual awareness.

You've given examples of things we didn't understand which we figured out because we were inspired to seek answers and further our understanding of the universe. Again, an attribute we have as a result of our spiritual awareness. You never did explain what is electricity and light and why do they function as they do in our universe... and you can't. You can only explain how they work.

We don't know everything but we know enough to realize our physical universe had a beginning because it is in motion and it couldn't be in motion unless something set it into motion. Simple logic dictates that physical nature and a physical universe could not have created itself. Some outside force must have acted to create our physical universe. We combine that simple logic with our undying and never-ending human spiritual connection and it makes sense. Disregard all "religious" incarnations and understand that we are spiritual creatures whether you like it or not... it's just who we are. And there IS a reason.

 

[Hollie]

Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs. BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days. That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science. So you are wrong.

Humans have ALWAYS done that and they still do that. Which is MY point... there's a reason humans do that and no other species does. We have it in our DNA... it's an inherent thing that makes us what we are. We are spiritually connected to something greater than ourselves.... we always have been and always will be. We can't simply pretend like that doesn't matter and it's all made up nonsense... that doesn't comport with rationality.

We are inspired by something to be more than what we are. We have the inspiration to learn and grow and expand on what we know. This stems from our spiritual awareness of something greater than ourselves. And yes... this spiritual awareness that we inherently have as humans often manifests itself into supernatural beliefs in things that aren't real... religions that are false... concocted notions by men who are grappling with their own spiritual understanding.

You can understand HOW science works all day long... do you know WHY science works? Why does a molecule of oxygen compel itself to bond with two molecules of hydrogen when it doesn't have to? If it didn't, we couldn't have water.... but it does... why? Why do certain atomic particles become electrically charged while others don't? What IS electricity? What IS light? We know what they do and how they work... but WHY? You see... there is nothing in the laws of physics which says it HAS to be that way, it just is. So while science is very useful at explaining HOW the universe works, it cannot explain WHY.

That means nothing at all. Yes, we are natural "story tellers." We feel a need to explain that which we don't understand, such as labeling things as "good" and "evil." I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.

Ask yourself, do other living things in nature recognize "good" and "evil"? Where do you believe that comes from? It's not found elsewhere in nature. It comes from our spiritual awareness.

You've given examples of things we didn't understand which we figured out because we were inspired to seek answers and further our understanding of the universe. Again, an attribute we have as a result of our spiritual awareness. You never did explain what is electricity and light and why do they function as they do in our universe... and you can't. You can only explain how they work.

We don't know everything but we know enough to realize our physical universe had a beginning because it is in motion and it couldn't be in motion unless something set it into motion. Simple logic dictates that physical nature and a physical universe could not have created itself. Some outside force must have acted to create our physical universe. We combine that simple logic with our undying and never-ending human spiritual connection and it makes sense. Disregard all "religious" incarnations and understand that we are spiritual creatures whether you like it or not... it's just who we are. And there IS a reason.

Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.

 

[ChrisL]

People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.

The NT clearly states that Jesus spoke only in parables to crowds but explained everything clearly only to his disciples in private and even then they had trouble comprehending. Whatever he said to them in private was never written down in plain language..

Why would you find it surprising that the NT itself was written in the same way that Jesus spoke and taught which is in the same tradition as the OT was written?

however many people have been deceived into believing that a talking serpent is an invisible disembodied entity that tries to enter people minds in order to trick them into doing naughty things they all probably learned that superstitious nonsense from an actual talking serpent who is only invisible to those whose eyes have been blinded.


The manual of discipline of the dead sea scrolls clearly shows that there was hidden meaning in the law that was to be kept secret from froward people for fear of the revelation inducing apostasy.



Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.


No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].


Manual of Discipline

That is not true at all. People really believed these things for thousands of years. Lol. A lot of people STILL believe them.

 

[ChrisL]

The Bible is a book written by men who were ignorant of the world around them and felt a need to explain things, and also to put the "fear of God" into people for control purposes.

 

[hobelim]

People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.

The NT clearly states that Jesus spoke only in parables to crowds but explained everything clearly only to his disciples in private and even then they had trouble comprehending. Whatever he said to them in private was never written down in plain language..

Why would you find it surprising that the NT itself was written in the same way that Jesus spoke and taught which is in the same tradition as the OT was written?

however many people have been deceived into believing that a talking serpent is an invisible disembodied entity that tries to enter people minds in order to trick them into doing naughty things they all probably learned that superstitious nonsense from an actual talking serpent who is only invisible to those whose eyes have been blinded.


The manual of discipline of the dead sea scrolls clearly shows that there was hidden meaning in the law that was to be kept secret from froward people for fear of the revelation inducing apostasy.



Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.


No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].


Manual of Discipline

That is not true at all. People really believed these things for thousands of years. Lol. A lot of people STILL believe them.

Yes, you are right. Maybe I wasn't clear.

It is true that the vast majority of people really believed these stories and many still do. It is also true that the hidden meaning was held back from the uninitiated including uninitiated Jews as can be seen in the quotes posted from the dead sea scrolls.. It was a way to keep the population easy to manage while providing a smooth living for the few who were privy to the ' secrets of the kingdom of heaven". With everyone blind crippled deaf or dead, society itself was like a devils playground to the few who could live with themselves prospering on easy street with their eyes wide open knowing it was at everyone else's suffering and expense..

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that no one lights a candle only to put it under a bushel. He was pissed off that they would keep the way to life from being made clear from even their own people.

Thats why he asked them how they could expect to escape the condemnation of hell.

It is also why many high ranking religious authorities asked where Jesus got his teaching, not because it was so remarkable to them but because it was supposed to be a secret.

 

[Boss]

Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.

There are no magical spirit realms. We are inherently connected to the one and only spiritual nature which created the physical universe in which we reside. Other animals are capable of abstract rationalization. Our complex brain has nothing to do with it and IF it did, we'd see this evidence in all upper primates who have essentially the same functional brain parts as us.

The notion you are promoting is absurd on it's face... you are essentially claiming we are sophisticated enough to conceptualize something but too stupid to understand it's fake. That doesn't make rational sense. But rationality doesn't make sense when you're trying so hard to reject something so obvious.

 

[Hollie]

Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.

There are no magical spirit realms. We are inherently connected to the one and only spiritual nature which created the physical universe in which we reside. Other animals are capable of abstract rationalization. Our complex brain has nothing to do with it and IF it did, we'd see this evidence in all upper primates who have essentially the same functional brain parts as us.

The notion you are promoting is absurd on it's face... you are essentially claiming we are sophisticated enough to conceptualize something but too stupid to understand it's fake. That doesn't make rational sense. But rationality doesn't make sense when you're trying so hard to reject something so obvious.

I agree. There are no magical spirit realms..... other than the ones you have created.

There's no reason to accept your proselytizing about some connection to magical spirit realms. Those are entirely your claim with not a single bit of evidence to support such a statement. Your claims to gods are no different than all the other claims to gods, none of which have ever been substantiated. So tell us how to rationalize your gods and your magical spirit realms as opposed to all the gods and magical spirit realms that were invented before yours.

The fact is, as you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that reside in us still, that have proven successful over evolutionary time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.

For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you. Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.

1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.

2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.

Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.

Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.

3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.

Are you okay with interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?

 

[emilynghiem]

Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.

There are no magical spirit realms. We are inherently connected to the one and only spiritual nature which created the physical universe in which we reside. Other animals are capable of abstract rationalization. Our complex brain has nothing to do with it and IF it did, we'd see this evidence in all upper primates who have essentially the same functional brain parts as us.

The notion you are promoting is absurd on it's face... you are essentially claiming we are sophisticated enough to conceptualize something but too stupid to understand it's fake. That doesn't make rational sense. But rationality doesn't make sense when you're trying so hard to reject something so obvious.

Dear Boss what about people who describe some of the negative energies and entities as demonic forces or karmic influences from the past.

Can't that still be part of the scientific world as energy and laws of cause and effect and how these manifest in the world or worlds/dimensions?

Isn't there a way of describing different levels of energy and vibration where it is science and not magic/supernatural/make believe?

 

[james bond]

If Adam and Eve were the first humans who were Kain and Abel's wife?

The Bible does not say who Cain’s wife was. Many think that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. Very likely that Adam and Eve had many other children and perhaps grandchildren of Adam and Eve were living at the time.

 

[james bond]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

 

[hobelim]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

If they made an error and marked time by the month with twelve months in a year then Noah lived to be about 79 years old and it took him ten years to build the ark and by that measure methuselah lived to be 81. Probably twice as old as the average life span back then. Must have seemed miraculous at the time but there was really nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it knowing what the average life span is now..

To insist that Noah actually lived to be 950 years old because "people lived longer back then" as a result of their diet or some other such malarkey really is just fartsmoke.

 

[james bond]

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

 

[emilynghiem]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

If they made an error and marked time by the month with twelve months in a year then Noah lived to be about 79 years old and it took him ten years to build the ark and by that measure methuselah lived to be 81. Probably twice as old as the average life span back then. Must have seemed miraculous at the time but there was really nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it knowing what the average life span is now..

To insist that Noah actually lived to be 950 years old because "people lived longer back then" as a result of their diet or some other such malarkey really is just fartsmoke.

Dear hobelim Mudda and james bond
I'm sure you could call garbage science "fartsmoke" that wasted people's time in conflict over
* whether the solar system was geocentric or heliocentric
* whether the Brontosaurus actually existed as a separate species of dinosaur
or was an accidental composite of two other established species
* whether surgeons should wash their hands in between operations if indeed
there were "invisible" germs causing infections that were killing patients.

Remember the first doctor to theorize that before microscopes were invented that
"proved the existence" of these microscopic bacteria and viruses was ostracized
from his profession for spouting such an improvable theory and demanding change based on it.

Even with this in its history, science still continues today, and is used to correct errors.
You can call junk science for what it is, and it doesn't prevent people from using science the right way

 

[emilynghiem]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

Dear james bond: If you and I put together scientific research and replicable studies on spiritual healing, for example, that bridged the gap between science and religion as not conflicting with each other, then this research would hold up to scientific review, REGARDLESS of naysayers like Mudda objecting the whole time.

In fact, we could make the Mudda 's and other naysayers of teh world
the CONTROL group and compare the success rate of people who WON'T forgive and work with opposing groups
to the success rate of people who DO choose to forgive and find ways to work together despite differences.

And show which group does better in terms of mental and physical health and recovery times.
And which group has more diverse partnerships in solving mutiple problems instead of delegating
undersolved conflcit to govt to decide (instead of the people involve in the suit actully work out those issues here).