Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[bigrebnc1775]

I am getting a headach with this shit of I don't know but your wrong, stupid ignorant bull fucking shit. Either I am right or your right.

Wrong. This isn't a discrete question. Perhaps you keep asking the same question over and over, because you aren't satisfied with the answers people are giving you. However, they are valid answers nonetheless.

I can without a doubt in my mind say their is a creator,

This issue does not hang on the degree of doubt in your mind. This is your fallacy. Your strongly held beliefs and convictions are fine for your own belief system. They aren't convincing to the rest of us.



I don't claim to know how "life began". I am not the one having a hissy fit over the issue.



Exactly. Why? Because what I "believe" is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the overwhelming collection of facts and data that support evolution as the driving force behind the rise of the diversity of life.

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. I agree with evolution, because I have seen the evidence and it is overwhelming.

First I said life came from pond scum being sarcastic meaning the sea, according to your and your side that was wrong, then I said man is supposed to have evolved from ape and damn if that wasn't denied even when it is a Darwin theory.

Because it is not in Darwin's theory. For the 50th time, Darwin never claimed "man evolved from an ape". He claimed we share a common ancestor. Again, your ignorance on what evolution does and does not say is amazing. Perhaps you should actually read the theory before stomping your feed and proclaiming you are right like a petulant little child.

So which is it sport what is your view on how life began?

I've answered this. I am not going to repeat it.

This issue does not hang on the degree of doubt in your mind. This is your fallacy. Your strongly held beliefs and convictions are fine for your own belief system. They aren't convincing to the rest of us.

Nor is science convincing either. nothing that science says works it just does not add up. It's basicly magic. I had a lab professor once many years ago and we went head to toe on this subject. He wouldn't give me an A but he couldn't fail me either. asshole.

Because it is not in Darwin's theory. For the 50th time, Darwin never claimed "man evolved from an ape". He claimed we share a common ancestor. Again, your ignorance on what evolution does and does not say is amazing. Perhaps you should actually read the theory before stomping your feed and proclaiming you are right like a petulant little child.

Really common ancestor? Is that some new code word? Wouldn't something in common be from the same thing?

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago.
Evolution Of Man

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What is written:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago."

How bigred reads it:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from apes."

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

It's not about creationism,the anti God crowd made it about evolution to discredit the bible. They hated the fact that I pointed out to them what Hell really is according to the scriptures. They don't want to lose their reason to hate on God because out of ignorance they were taught God was gonna torture people forever.

They don't want to believe God is merciful and he is giving them a choice to choose life or death. They don't want to believe there is a creator because they would have to admit they believed a bunch of B.S. They also don't want to admit what they believe has been agenda driven for many years.

But to answer your question again it's not about creationism,now it has shifted to how life could have come into existence without intelligence being envolved. They still have not figured out in the labs they are trying to create life but they forget it took intelligence and it didn't happen naturally.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's your kooky author being completely shredded apart.

http://greengabbro.net/2005/02/14/fun-with-creationist-plate-tectonics/

Green Gabbro

rock out to the apparatus

Fun with Creationist Plate Tectonics
From Left2Right to Pharyngula to you and me: High-Speed Plate Tectonics and Young Earth Creationism. Yow! Before we indulge ourselves in pointless nitpicking, let us address one misconception that seems to have come up among even the reality-based participants in this discussion:

Whatever Wegener might have thought, Pangaea was not “primordial”. Before there was Pangaea (c. 250 million years ago) there was Rodinia (c. 1 billion years ago). Before that, there may or may not have been other supercontinents, Columbia or Pangaea: Episode I or what have you – it’s hard to tell when most of the evidence has been swallowed back into the mantle. But it’s generally accepted that the continents have been stuck together and pulled apart at least twice. Since Genesis only allows for mentions one such event, it’s silly to claim that the modern story of multiple supercontinents was a Biblical hypothesis.*

But we shan’t let that ruin our fun with Do-While Jones, a hammer, and our trusty lumps of silly putty. Oh, no.

Mr. Jones begins with a basic introduction to plate tectonics, which is pretty much accurate. Possibly this is because he cribbed it from Schmidt and Harbert. When he is done being sad that geology textbooks use metaphors (which he calls “New Age”) as a pedagogical device, and fail to credit the not-at-all metaphorical Bible as the progenitor of all knowledge, we see some of his independent assessments of plate tectonics. They’re not awe-inspiring.

Also, “independent” means “pulled out of context from a freshman geology text”:

The three differences between modern theory of Plate Tectonics and the ancient theory of the division of land during the time of Peleg are (1) how it happened, (2) when it happened, and (3) how long it took to happen.

Come to think of it, there are really only two differences. The explanation of how it happened is basically the same for both theories. In the creationist theory, the land was divided by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. In the Plate Tectonic theory, the plates are moved by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. According to one college geology textbook,

Some geologists believe that plate-tectonic movements can be explained by convection in the upper mantle. Other geologists believe that convection occurs in the entire mantle. Thus convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred in the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred any time in the past?

The college geology textbook he mentions is Press and Siever’s Understanding Earth, which we happen to have handy (though it’s the second edition, from 1998, not 1994). It was my first geology textbook ever – awwww! In my copy, the two ellipses in that quote cover a section-break and a full paragraph, and must be read upside-down and backwards for those sentences to occur in the order in which they are quoted. Here’s the quote in situ:

[... an analogy to Silly Putty, to explain how seemingly rigid rock can flow over long timescales.]… at conditions of high pressure and temperature, the mantle behaves as an extremely viscous fluid and “creeps” or flows. Thus, convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred within the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred at any time in the past?

Effects of Convection It turns out that seafloor spreading and plate tectonics are direct evidence of convection at work. The rising hot matter under mid-ocean ridges builds new lithosphere, which cools as it spreads away; eventually, it sinks back into the mantle, where it is resorbed. This is convection; heat is carried from the interior to the surface by the motion of matter.

Some geologists believe that only the upper few hundred kilometers of the mantle are subject to the convection that drives plates, as in Figure 19.10. This would imply that the upper and lower mantles do not mix. Others think that the whole mantle is involved. [...] Regardless of the specifics, geologists now believe that the movement of heat from the interior to the surface as the seafloor spreads is an important mechanism by which Earth has cooled over geologic time.

So maybe there were some changes between editions. But after we strip away disingenuous pull-quotes (why were they from the section on heat flow from the earth’s interior, and not the section on the driving mechanism of plate tectonics?) we see that in the creationist theory, the land is divided by some mysterious force that can never be adequately explained scientifically, while in plate tectonic theory the plates are moved by a not-so-mysterious force which we are understanding better and better every day. Which is basically the same thing as not understanding at all.

The real fun, though, comes when we examine Mr. Jones’s central claim, that plate tectonics happened really really fast. Now’s the time to bring out the Silly Putty and the hammer! Take a lump of Silly Putty and whack it real good with a hammer – if you do it right, the normally pliable putty will shatter. This is the funnest illustration EVAR of the way materials respond very differently to forces applied at short time scales than they do to force applied steadily over time.**

When you’re done playing, take a look at these fabulous folded limestone beds in Pennsylvania and the Palmdale road cut. Try to duplicate those shapes by hitting your silly putty with a hammer (we know you weren’t really done playing).

We could go on to make snarky remarks about the way Do-While Jones confuses the Pacific and Farallon plates. But it’s Valentines Day and we have chocolate chips to melt into a lazy person’s fondue. Young-earther fish will still be in their barrels for shooting another day.

* Compatible with Genesis? Plausibly, if you’re willing to play fast and loose with the timescale. Predicted by it? Not so much.
**A less fun illustration occurs in woodworking: when you’re bending wood, you need to use steady pressure and a great deal of patience, or the wood will break. I could go on, but why?

You and i have a different definition for shredded.

Do you understand the difference between differing opinions ? Natrally you are gonna believe what your side say's and i do the same but what is important is what the evidence shows.

Differing opinions are great.

Fact denying isn't great.

Inventing science based on dogma isn't great.

If that is not the pot calling the kettle black. It's dogma to believe life came from non-living matter. It's dogma to believe life exists in space. It's dogma to believe one cell evolved to all that we see today.

Let me tell you why,there is no evidence to support any of it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You keep asking me to provide a scientific explanation that claims certainty on a subject that no credited scientist claims certainty (ambiogenesis).

We don't know how life started for certain, there is no "why" about it.

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

Copout ! another thing you can't prove.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

Wrong you guys came in here and derailed the thread. Because you hated hearing God is not this evil being you have been taught, so it was time to attack the creator.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

It's a bore. I'm still waiting for someone to address the whole question of what hell is.

I say it's in the mind and it is NOT a "place" one "goes to".

It looks like you boys only want to talk "science" to each other.

How scientific is hell?

I have already posted plenty of scriptures to show what Hell is, that is if you believe in the bible and the Hebrews it was their langusage where it originated from.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

About page 6 when YWC again claimed old goat herders know more about modern science than modern scientists do.

Nope, i claimed the bible said things that man at the time of the writings could not have known. You assume they are ignorant goat herders that is your first mistake. Ignorant goat herders built the pyramids,talk about childish comments.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hell is a tool of powerful religious leaders to scare the ignorant masses into being good, often while their leaders lead a debauched lifestyle.

I am no fan of organized religion period.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

Not anymore since science got hijacked. Did you know at one time most scientist were creationist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

It MUST be falsifiable.

Exactly. The wingnuts don't get that, to introduce God into science, would require that they admit that there is not only a possibility that God doesn't exist, but that this could be proven by experiementation.

Who said we have to introduce God. But i think we can reason even in science no ?

Here are the choices either lifeless matter created life or there is a creator now which one seems to be more credible ?

You guys don't get it ,even if scientist were to create life in the lab it did not happen naturally and it was achieved through intelligence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is written:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago."

How bigred reads it:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from apes."

Have you identified this apelike creature that is our nearest ancestor yet ?

Why do you bother posting it is clear you can't read between the lines.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

Not anymore since science got hijacked. Did you know at one time most scientist were creationist.

True, but of course you do realize they will say some of them also believed in black magic

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is written:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago."

How bigred reads it:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from apes."

Well how else can it be viewed as? An ape is an apetheir is no such thing nor has there ever been an ape like man on earth. Everytime science turns up remains they always find out it's just the remains of an ape, an anmial not of any man.

 

[InDoctriNation]

It MUST be falsifiable.

Exactly. The wingnuts don't get that, to introduce God into science, would require that they admit that there is not only a possibility that God doesn't exist, but that this could be proven by experiementation.

Who said we have to introduce God. But i think we can reason even in science no ?

Here are the choices either lifeless matter created life or there is a creator now which one seems to be more credible ?

You guys don't get it ,even if scientist were to create life in the lab it did not happen naturally and it was achieved through intelligence.

Well, even though you are presenting a false dichotomy, I'll go ahead and say that lifeless matter creating life is much more probable than a creator. We know lifeless matter actually exists, and all life forms are composed of lifeless matter. On the other hand, there is zero evidence of any supernatural catalyst for life (aka no evidence for a creator, sorry). Seems pretty obvious to me, but you have a different opinion, and you are entitled to it.

 

[InDoctriNation]

What is written:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago."

How bigred reads it:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from apes."

Well how else can it be viewed as? An ape is an apetheir is no such thing nor has there ever been an ape like man on earth. Everytime science turns up remains they always find out it's just the remains of an ape, an anmial not of any man.

Have you ever heard of the species homo erectus, neadertals, australopithecus, etc. They are all hominid fossils that have been discovered that are different species than homo sapiens (us). How would you explain these fossils, given that the differences between homo sapiens and many of the other hominid species are very subtle, yet clearly documented? I would advise you to head on over to google, type in "human evolution," and educate yourself. I know you won't though, because you are clearly willfully ignorant of the facts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is written:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago."

How bigred reads it:
"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from apes."

Well how else can it be viewed as? An ape is an apetheir is no such thing nor has there ever been an ape like man on earth. Everytime science turns up remains they always find out it's just the remains of an ape, an anmial not of any man.

Have you ever heard of the species homo erectus, neadertals, australopithecus, etc. They are all hominid fossils that have been discovered that are different species than homo sapiens (us). How would you explain these fossils, given that the differences between homo sapiens and many of the other hominid species are very subtle, yet clearly documented? I would advise you to head on over to google, type in "human evolution," and educate yourself. I know you won't though, because you are clearly willfully ignorant of the facts.

Yes I have, and I repeat thier as never been an ape like man on earth ever.

 

[geauxtohell]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

Not anymore since science got hijacked. Did you know at one time most scientist were creationist.

Science did not get hijacked.

Did you know at one time scientists believed the Earth was the center of the universe?

What is your point?

 

[geauxtohell]

Nor is science convincing either. nothing that science says works it just does not add up. It's basicly magic. I had a lab professor once many years ago and we went head to toe on this subject. He wouldn't give me an A but he couldn't fail me either. asshole.

Heaven forbid your professor actually do his job and try and teach you, the student, something.

Hilariously, you have convinced yourself that your substandard grade was the result of some sort of bias and not your obvious refusal to learn the material.

Did it ever occur to you that the process of learning far exceeds your personal opinion on something?

Really common ancestor? Is that some new code word? Wouldn't something in common be from the same thing?

Only if you consider Darwin's work "new".

"The fact that human beings and monkeys have tailbones is evidence for common ancestry precisely because tailbones are useless in humans. Contrast this with the torpedo shape that sharks and dolphins share; this similarity is useful in both groups. One might expect natural selection to cause the torpedo shape to evolve in large aquatic predators whether or not they have a common ancestor. This is why the adaptive similarity is almost valueless to the systematist who is trying to reconstruct patterns of common ancestry."

- Charles Darwin "The Origin of Species"

Again, you would have to work to look more iditiotic on this subject.

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago.
Evolution Of Man

Yes. That would be the common ancestor that I previously mentioned. I see where you got tripped up though. They didn't use the exact term "common ancestor". You had to actually read and think about what they said.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

Copout ! another thing you can't prove.

The way you post is cute, similar to a child talking about Santa Claus.

See let's analyze your sentence post here. You're acting like being able to prove something is most important in terms of science. But anyone who has the slightest respect for science knows you can't prove a god exists, yet (despite tons of proof and you covering your eyes and ears) you put a rule on science that they have to prove every little shred of everything and how everyone should just blindly believe every word of the Bible and ignore all the science that goes against it.