http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor



http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/May/Week3/15284798.jpg







12:35 am UK, Wednesday May 20, 2009 [i]

Alex Watts, Sky News Online

Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

This 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' is described as the "eighth wonder of the world"



The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.




"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said.

"This is the one that connects us directly with them.

"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'.

"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."

A team of the world's leading fossil experts, led by Professor Jorn Hurum, of Norway's National History Museum, have been secretly researching the 1ft 9in-tall young female monkey for the past two years.

And now it has been transported to New York under high security and unveiled to the world during the bicentenary of Darwin's birth."

Some find it hard to swallow that ordinary pig is 80% identical to current human race (irrespective to beliefs),
up to 98% in case of great ape.

Difficulty of going back where it happened is preservation of remains.

But as shown above with time more and more pieces of the puzzle gets unravelled and I am glad that some religions reluctantly accommodate new findings (Copernicus and others)

Happy wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 3:57pm:

Some find it hard to swallow that ordinary pig is 80% identical to current human race (irrespective to beliefs), up to 98% in case of great ape. Difficulty of going back where it happened is preservation of remains. But as shown above with time more and more pieces of the puzzle gets unravelled and I am glad that some religions reluctantly accommodate new findings (Copernicus and others)

The religions only accommodate the findings to appear relevant today,happy, you only have to look at some of the posters here to see some people will never get it.

oceans, that story can't be true, didn't you know the world is only 5 thousand years old, and if god made man in his image god must be a monkey ;D.

wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 4:34pm:

The religions only accommodate the findings to appear relevant today,happy, you only have to look at some of the posters here to see some people will never get it. oceans, that story can't be true, didn't you know the world is only 5 thousand years old, and if god made man in his image god must be a monkey ;D.

Happy to believe anything, providing it appeals to me, but sorry to say the 5,000 years story is not one of them.

I watched TV program with amazement that USA has very high percentage of creationists.

One day some will have to get their heads around some ideas.

The US does have a lot of creationists. Really strange stuff, but, people will believe anything if its popular enough.

Like 'Islam is the Religion of Peace' despite the globe being dominated by Islamic warfare, pretty much everywhere Islam is.

Human beings think in terms of minutes and hours, maybe just barely, in days. The idea of millenia, is not able to be grasped by most people. They cannot conceive of how much can happen in tens of millions of years. So they therefore think that there cannot be evolution, because, they haven't seen their domestic cat evolve into a lion....yes...the arguments are that stupid.

Evolution is fact - it occurs over millions of years, very very slowly. And weather there is a God or not, is not affected by evolution. You can still quite comfortably say, God made the universe, including evolution. I know some pretty hard core Catholic fundies who take that view, and believe that the Garden of Eden is a metaphor not to be taken literally, which is, only that they say, God made us and we turned from him.

The truth is, we are just advanced apes that think we are the greatest because we wear clothes and drive cars. While there are occasional flares of brilliance from our ape population, the bulk of the tribe are bog standard stoopid, and believe all sorts of ridiculous things.

LOL

I would have thought carbon dating put an end to the Creationists timetable.

As for Evolution...  it is just a theory, still.

Grendel wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 7:42pm:

LOL I would have thought carbon dating put an end to the Creationists timetable. As for Evolution...  it is just a theory, still.

I think the discovery of Ida disproves that dont you  ;)

Nope...  might not even be real...  been fakes before you know.

Grendel wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 7:57pm:

Nope...  might not even be real...  been fakes before you know.

What point would there be to producing a fake..you know i think there is a missing link or 2 in this forum  :o
and why do i have a sudden craving for a  banana smoothie?   :P

Fame and fortune....

been tried b4
Just a couple of years ago in China they had some really good frauds almost got by all the experts.

Even if this one is real, doesn't mean its the missing link or even that the theory of man evolving from apes or a common ancestor is correct.

Have you seen the movie "Inherit The Wind"

I doubt its a fake, Sir David Attenborough wouldn't
be involved with a fake.
I notice with the exception of one none of the freaky god squad have commented, I think they're still coming to terms with apes sharing over 90% dna with humans, imagine when they find out this animal is 97% the same as human.

grendel - never heard of "inherit the wind" - any good ??

that 'missing link" has a longer tail than I do.
it's a monkey.

Thanks for that Oceanz -It's a really interesting story. I knew you'd be good for something someday  ;)   ...and you told me that I was the missing link!

Those guys know a lot more about it than I do, but they do seem to be overstating the relationship with humans somewhat.
They say that they can be positively sure it's not a fake because of bone x-rays taken, so I'll believe them on that one.
I'll be looking forward to seeing the full doco about this amazing find.

Beautiful, wonderful.

Amadd wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 11:09am:

Those guys know a lot more about it than I do, but they do seem to be overstating the relationship with humans somewhat.

It was said to be “common ancestor” so from this creature one of the future splits became human.

This is my take on their comment.

Quote:

Thanks for that Oceanz -It's a really interesting story. I knew you'd be good for something someday  ;)   ...and you told [b]me that I was the missing link!

I didnt but you are, among a few others muddy.. I know you didnt mean that biatch, so your fake insults are lost on mwah!!!  ::)



Quote:

Those guys know a lot more about it than I do,

do tell    :D


Quote:

but they do seem to be overstating the relationship with humans somewhat.

I think you were standing in front of the miror when you typed that..truly!


Quote:

They say that they can be positively sure it's not a fake because of bone x-rays taken, so I'll believe them on that one. I'll be looking forward to seeing the full doco about this amazing find.

me too, see how we're bonding already  ?    :D

its early i shouldnt give you a hard time   ;)

http://www.livenews.com.au/static/view/F_0_peter-costello-mocking_a_32.jpg

another missing link

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 10:39am:

grendel - never heard of "inherit the wind" - any good ?? that 'missing link" has a longer tail than I do. it's a monkey.

Yes sprint, it does look like a monkey, and so did your(and mine) ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg grandpappy. :D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1179926/Is-David-Attenborough-set-reveal-Missing-Link-human-evolution.html

David Attenborough has been instruemental in this search..

"The BBC has made an extraordinary new documentary, presented by Sir David Attenborough, which will reveal the discovery of a fossilised skeleton that may be a vital ‘missing link’ in human evolution.
The 90-minute programme is top secret but The Mail on Sunday has learned from sources in America that the results of the study on which it is based will be revealed by a team of scientists and broadcasters in New York on May 19.
The centrepiece of the programme is the unveiling of the first-ever complete skeleton of an extinct animal called an adapid."

contd in link

I think it is marvelous to be alive in a time where we can witness such historical leaps forward in our understanding of the world, and more importantly, our place in it, and I can see why it would make those who promote mysticism and ignorance, more than a little nervous.

The footholds of the faithholders are getting more slippery every day, no wonder they scramble so desperately for any tenuous ideology to cling on to.

What's to be nervous about?
If you believe...  Everything is God's doing...

As for Darwins theory...  this creature doesn't change a thing.
It doesn't prove that modern man evolved from a single common ancestor that other apes did.
Even if it did, the fact we aren't gorillas  or chimps only prove that we evolved along another path as God intended.
The bible in Genesis says man evolved from the dust.  I don't see that genesis is a book to be taken literally.

example...  the Earth revolves around the Sun giving us a year, each rotation of the Earth itself  is a day...  how then when this was not the situation in Genesis can anyone say the world was created in 6 days?

Who is to say then that the creation of man from "dust" did not come about via evolution or some similar process.

I could argue the toss ad infinitum...  but why bother?
Some believe some don't all have their own interpretation.
We'll find out some day or we wont.

You don't even believe in the bible Grendel, you just believe in the new testament, so what does rvelations have to say about our current economic crisis?
Should I be packing some extra strong blockout lotion?

hey...  don't talk about stuff you clearly don't understand even being an athiest shouldn't give you that much trouble in understanding what I've said in the past.

Don't lie about me or what I've said it's pathetic and dishonest...  you do know what dishonesty is don't you... I mean you claim to be more ethical and moral than people who believe in God.

Pot? Black?

Are you back pedalling here and claiming you do believe in the whole bible?

If so, that is clearly contrary to what you have previously stated on numerous occasions, even to the extent of defining which books apply to jews, and which apply to christians.

And of course I have higher morals than religious people, mine are not defined by threats of hellfire, or promises of eternal bliss, just respect for humanity, plus I don't have the good old christian escape clause, "I am not perfect, just forgiven", any person who would display that is clearly in need of learning to accept responsibility for their actions in this life, rather than treating it as an entrance exam for heaven.

Grendel wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 7:42pm:

LOL I would have thought carbon dating put an end to the Creationists timetable.

So called, carbon dating, is a fraud being perpetrated upon mankind by the 'scientific' community.

No-one, i repeat, no-one, can prove the validity / veracity of carbon dating results.

Carbon dating is 'witch doctor' 'science'.






Quote:

As for Evolution...  it is just a theory, still.

That statement i can agree with.           ;DiQuote:

"What point would there be to producing a fake..?" Fame and fortune.... been tried b4 Just a couple of years ago in China they had some really good frauds almost got by all the experts. Even if this one is real, doesn't mean its the missing link or even that the theory of man evolving from apes or a common ancestor is correct.

Exactly.

And the 'scientific' community, has been shown to be packed with charlatans, and intellectual fraudsters.


The so-called 'science' of evolution is a house, built on a foundation of sand.....

Google,
scientific fraud
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=scientific+fraud+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=



more....

"Multiculti - preserve cultural id amid enemies"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242606209/51#51

If there is a black pot around here it's you Mozzkettle.
You really have fallen down lately haven't you.
Given up being fair, sane and trying to be logical?


Quote:

Are you back pedalling here and claiming you do believe in the whole bible?

Do i need to explain to you again that Christianity isnt Judaism.  That the testaments are 2 different things?  That only 1 holds the teachings of Christ in it, even if some of those are held in common.


Quote:

If so, that is clearly contrary to what you have previously stated on numerous occasions, even to the extent of defining which books apply to jews, and which apply to christians.

Apparently I do, because that is a lie.  Tell you what ask a theologian since you don't believe me.  Or use some logic...  how can a book be about someones teachings if they didn't even exist in that book?

It aint that difficult.

Quote:

And of course I have higher morals than religious people, mine are not defined by threats of hellfire, or promises of eternal bliss, just respect for humanity, plus I don't have the good old christian escape clause, "I am not perfect, just forgiven", any person who would display that is clearly in need of learning to accept responsibility for their actions in this life, rather than treating it as an entrance exam for heaven.

You wish.  Not all religious people are righteous. Certainly all don't brag about it like you and your moral relativism, flawed as it is.

Here you go Mozz... CHRISTIANS AREN'T PERFECT...  ONLY FORGIVEN.

BTW it's not a freebie to do everything you can in life that is morally wrong.  You are expected to do your best though and also it is expected that you will fail.  Something you seem to have absolutely no compassion about.  Mr Humanist.  ;D

SEEMS TO ME YOU CARRY A HUGE ANTI-RELIGIOUS CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER.

Oh and don't sit for any religious exam ok... you'd fail.  That's ok...  you're an athiest, why would you really know anything or understand religion.  You're a total  bigot where that is concerned.

Oh and Mozz...  after your death, when you come back to life for what people call judgement day....  will you believe then?

If so where does that put you do you think?

Quote:

So called, carbon dating, is a fraud being perpetrated upon mankind by the 'scientific' community. No-one, i repeat, no-one, can prove the validity / veracity of carbon dating results. Carbon dating is 'witch doctor' 'science'.

Oh Yadda Yadda Yadda ...Puhleeeaaassee!!

Sure Grendel, whatever you say.
You keep on with your mix and match religious principles, they suit you perfectly, you can justify anything, at anytime, and convince youreself, if no-one else, that your inconsistencies are validated by a higher power.

No religious chip on my shoulder, my position is clear, I despise religion, and I always will, and the good people who hold religious beliefs do so despite their religion, not because of it.

Religion sucks, and god is dead, and thank god for that.

I used to respect you if not agree with you....  ::)

I have to respect every loons right to believe in their make believe sky daddys, but I ask none for my personal distaste for religion, it is mine, it is personal, and it is irrevocable.

As always I point out that I do not categorise all people that follow religious beliefs as evil, but I do consider religion, by it's very nature, to be a force of evil, and that so many use their common decency, and good natures to rise above that evil, is testament to their personal integrity, and not their religious convictions.

So, let me hate religion, if I want to, it is one of the few joys I have left in my life, if you don't count sex, drugs and rock and roll. ;)

Well I'm no loon...

Time you posted some proof before slandering everyone who dissents from your pov.

What a BS artist you are on this issue Grendel.
Every time someone quotes any OT stuff that displays the repugnant teachings in it, you claim it doen't count, because christians don't relate to the OT, just the NT, that is until you wish to use something from it that suits your current argument.

If the bible is not a divine work, then why do christians use it, and make similiarly spurious claims about it's origins that you reject from muslims when they speak of the koran?
Why not just have a "christian" bible?

They do?
Oh, that's right, I remember, it is called "The Bible".

So keep your BS excuses for those of a like mind, who choose to display principles that would make a moral contortionist green with envy.

Darwin has predicted finds of "missing links". Darwin was no atheist he believed in god. Stalin was atheist he did not believe in god. Stalin was a mass murderer. The difference between those who believe that god exist and those who believe that god does not exist is obvious.

Yes Tallo, many things are "obvious", to those who wouldn't know an original idea, even if they ever had one, and merely parrot garbage they have been programmed with.

Instead of brainwashing kids with religious bunkum, they could try and teach them to think for themselves.

You have been challenged over this silly claim, that Stalin's lack of belief in god, was in any way a causal factor for his megalomanic, homicidal nature.

You could just as easily claim it was because he had brown hair, it is a silly claim to make, and your inability to grasp that fact is indicative of your limiting views.

having no religion is no cause for a mass murderer.
However a lack of ethics, decency and humanity opens the door to this.
Which is what all mass murderers have.

I'ld assume most mass murderers did not believe in a God.

After all, if we were just a pile of nicely arranged molecules with no meaning, theres nothing to hold us back from being as bad as we can , is there ?

mozzaok wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:06am:

Yes Tallo, many things are "obvious", to those who wouldn't know an original idea, even if they ever had one, and merely parrot garbage they have been programmed with. Instead of brainwashing kids with religious bunkum, they could try and teach them to think for themselves. You have been challenged over this silly claim, that Stalin's lack of belief in god, was in any way a causal factor for his megalomanic, homicidal nature. You could just as easily claim it was because he had brown hair, it is a silly claim to make, and your inability to grasp that fact is indicative of your limiting views.

Mao was mass murderer too and atheist as well.

Repeat: Darwin was no atheists so assertion that finding a "link" somehow makes "footholds of the faithholders  more slippery every day" is nothing but atheistic propaganda garbage.

Instead of teaching kids atheistic garbage it would be better to teach them history.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:18am:

After all, if we were just a pile of nicely arranged molecules with no meaning, theres nothing to hold us back from being as bad as we can , is there ?

Conscience.

Stalin was conscious atheist and mass murderer but he did not predict a "missing link". It was non atheistic Darwin who did.

tallowood wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 7:44am:

Darwin has predicted finds of "missing links". Darwin was no atheist he believed in god. Stalin was atheist he did not believe in god. Stalin was a mass murderer. The difference between those who believe that god exist and those who believe that god does not exist is obvious.

Beethoven liked trees. My dog also likes trees. By your logic, it is obvious that my dog is Beethoven.

All Atheists are mass murderers?

Get a grip.

Next you'll be telling me that Mao Zedong was an Atheist.

Quote:

What a BS artist you are on this issue Grendel.

Oh dear whatsup mozz, cant argue gotta insult instead?

Quote:

Every time someone quotes any OT stuff that displays the repugnant teachings in it, you claim it doen't count, because christians don't relate to the OT, just the NT, that is until you wish to use something from it that suits your current argument.

No every time someone quotes OT stuff I point out it is not about the teachings of life of Christ.  And no I don't confuse the 2 or misquote.  I don't even lie about what I say like you just did.


Quote:

If the bible is not a divine work, then why do christians use it, and make similiarly spurious claims about it's origins that you reject from muslims when they speak of the koran? Why not just have a "christian" bible?

I have never commented on its "divinity" nor the "divinity" of either testaments.  Certainly both were written by men.  As for "divine"  intervention or inspiration in the writing.  I don't know about that either.  I don't see it as particularly relevant.  Christians use "the bible" because it contains Christs teachings.  They use both testaments differently.  Some churches don't even use the OT at all.

Quote:

So keep your BS excuses for those of a like mind, who choose to display principles that would make a moral contortionist green with envy.

So keep your ignorance to yourself and stop lying about what I say and believe.

grendel - it'ld be nice is mozzaok (being a global mod) did not swear,  abuse or overly ridicule others and accepted some people just are christians.

most athiests are spiritually mature

Amadd wrote on May 24^th, 2009 at 11:14am:

Quote: So called, carbon dating, is a fraud being perpetrated upon mankind by the 'scientific' community. No-one, i repeat, no-one, can prove the validity / veracity of carbon dating results. Carbon dating is 'witch doctor' 'science'. Oh Yadda Yadda Yadda ...Puhleeeaaassee!!

Amadd,


Your response to my post, is incredulity ???


Dictionary,
incredulous, incredulity = = unwilling or unable to believe something.


LOL


Again, evolutionists demonstrating their dogmatic rejection of facts.

I present evidence of the rapid petrification of organic material [i.e. the rapid formation of fossils].

I present evidence of the inaccurate 'scientific' dating of minerals [....on which the 'house' of Evolution Theory stands].


EVOLUTIONIST RESPONSE.....

Unwilling to believe the TRUTH.


Nothing strange there.





Hey Amadd, try this one,
.....Jesus is the son of God.

He was killed by men,
.....and after three days, and three nights, he rose from the dead.
.....he is alive.


That claim, i can expect you to be incredulous about,
.....because i can't prove it to you.i
1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23  But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

mozzaok wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 12:29am:

I have to respect every loons right to believe in their make believe sky daddys, but I ask none for my personal distaste for religion, it is mine, it is personal, and it is irrevocable. As always I point out that I do not categorise all people that follow religious beliefs as evil, but I do consider religion, by it's very nature, to be a force of evil, and that so many use their common decency, and good natures to rise above that evil, is testament to their personal integrity, and not their religious convictions. So, let me hate religion, if I want to, it is one of the few joys I have left in my life, if you don't count sex, drugs and rock and roll. ;)

moz,

I'm content to let you and others believe, in nothing.

In this life, we are all [generally] allowed to make our own choices.

And that is as it should be.



As 'children' [....and we are!], how could we ever be expected to learn what TRUTH is, if we were never allowed to make experience our own mistakes?
.....and allowed to learn from those experiences [of life].

And that is what, is the heart of what 'repentance' is about.
.....the 'repentance' spoken of throughout the Bible.

The 'coming to understand' that we keep making 'mistakes' [poor choices], and then deciding to, in the future, try to avoid the more obvious 'poor choices'.

With God, or without God [as an atheist], no matter how smart we think that we have become,
....we will continue to make mistakes.

That is part of our worldly nature.

We are flawed creatures.

Acknowledge it, to yourself.



Meditate on those words!          ::)




Ezekiel 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?i'We're only human, we're supposed to make mistakes.'

Lyrics from Billy Joel song.

This is so typical of the god ditherers, this thread is about the discovery of more evidence that man evolved ,yet the god squad turn it into another thread of bible verses. ::)

wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 3:20pm:

This is so typical of the god ditherers, this thread is about the discovery of more evidence that man evolved ,yet the god squad turn it into another thread of bible verses. ::)

skip,

That is just an example, of evolution in action.

We start off discussing one thing, and the discussion naturally, evolves, into the discussion of an associated topic.

A form of 'natural selection' ???         :D

Good point skip, it is about the fact that as a race we are gaining more and more knowledge about our history, and that is a positive aspect worth noting.

I allowed Grendel's "fake" dig to get under my skin, and allowed it to raise my hackles, because it seemed indicative of the obstinate refusal of some elements to ever truly address reality.

Forget them, let them wallow in their delusions if it makes them believe themselves to be happy from it, I am happy to be around to witness another major piece of the puzzle of life fall into place, and to see it's significance welcomed by good people whose sole aim is to increase the sum of human understanding.

I didn't say it was 'fake" I said it could be.

Either way it doesn't make a jot of difference, oh and I already explained evolution from a religious perspective anyway.  Not a fundie never have been.  How forgetful of you.

It's not a threat to anyone's religiosity or beliefs.  it is just another animal.

Fair dinkum some of these ditherers make it up as they go along.
There is no explanation for evolution in the christian religion, a true christian believes that god created the world in 6 days, lets face it the idea of evolution is only a relatively knew one, there is no room in the christian religion to entertain evolution, its pure fantasy.

muso wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:34am:

tallowood wrote on May 25th, 2009 at 7:44am: Darwin has predicted finds of "missing links". Darwin was no atheist he believed in god. Stalin was atheist he did not believe in god. Stalin was a mass murderer. The difference between those who believe that god exist and those who believe that god does not exist is obvious. Beethoven liked trees. My dog also likes trees. By your logic, it is obvious that my dog is Beethoven. All Atheists are mass murderers? Get a grip. Next you'll be telling me that Mao Zedong was an Atheist.

That is logic of atheists who try to attack religion "faithholders" while conveniently forgetting that Darwin was a "faithholder" while Stalin and Mao were mass murderers. More then that when atheists were replied in the same key they used they started whimpering about derailing thread by "faithholders" conveniently forgetting that they themselves derailed it earlier.

Muso, get a grip on reality you really if you want people take you seriously about environmental issues.

Yeah Muso like others here don't have a clue so their construct easily fall down.

I don't feel inclined to repeat posts that already have addressed nonsense

Was Darwin a Christian? Did he believe in God?

Many people are under the impression that Charles Darwin, the most well known promoter of evolutionism, died a Christian and renounced his theory. This is mainly due to rumors surrounding his death, and the fact that he studied at seminary as a young man and is buried in Westminster Abbey. This article reveals the truth.

...“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become"; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: "the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us"; his rejection of the Gospel chronology: "the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events"; and his rejection of the Gospel events: "they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses."

Summing up the above, he wrote, “by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

On another occasion he wrote, “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually."

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

The descent into darkness did not stop there. In 1876, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,

“Formerly I was led... to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”

In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

Oh my "other people's delusion", Darwin was a mass murderer!!  :o

Amadd wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 7:14pm:

Was Darwin a Christian? Did he believe in God? Many people are under the impression that Charles Darwin, the most well known promoter of evolutionism, died a Christian and renounced his theory. This is mainly due to rumors surrounding his death, and the fact that he studied at seminary as a young man and is buried in Westminster Abbey. This article reveals the truth. ...“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become"; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: "the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us"; his rejection of the Gospel chronology: "the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events"; and his rejection of the Gospel events: "they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses." Summing up the above, he wrote, “by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” On another occasion he wrote, “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually." “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” The descent into darkness did not stop there. In 1876, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote, “Formerly I was led... to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.” In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.” http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Oh my "other people's delusion", Darwin was a mass murderer!!  :o

Did Darwin renounced God? Did he declared himself an atheist?
Not according to quotes you so kindly provided.
So it stands  
1 Darwin was not an atheist.  
2 Darwin was NOT a mass murderer!
If you have facts to contrary please supply.  

;D

Darwin was Agnostic, just as are the many who are labelled "athiest" because they do not believe in Christ or follow the writings of somebody else's version of what God is or what he supposedly said.

Religious Belief
By Charles Darwin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an extract from:
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882

With original omissions restored
Edited with Appendix and Notes
by his grand-daughter
Nora Barlow.
(1958)

During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.
The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is suppoted, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

...Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals and Plants, and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

...The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sence of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sence, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.



http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm


...I suppose that means he was just a serial killer?  ;D

Amadd wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 10:09pm:

Darwin was Agnostic, just as are the many who are labelled "athiest" because they do not believe in Christ or follow the writings of somebody else's version of what God is or what he supposedly said. Religious Belief By Charles Darwin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an extract from: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 With original omissions restored Edited with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow. (1958) During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible. By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is suppoted, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories. ...Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals and Plants, and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered. ...The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sence of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sence, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music. I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic. http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm ...I suppose that means he was just a serial killer?  ;D

An agnostic != atheist because atheists pretend(believe) that they know that god(s) don't exist though they can not prove it.
In contrast to Darwin mass atheistic murderers like Stalin, Mao etc. did not called themselves agnostics and did not predict missing links. So a call from a desperate atheist about the missing link as the proof of his credo stands out like a pile of BS in a paddock.

Darwin was more "Godly" than most people could ever hope to be.

Amadd wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 11:14pm:

Darwin was more "Godly" than most people could ever hope to be.

Yes, just like the lost link looks more modern then most atheists  ;D

Quote:

Yes, just like the lost link looks more modern then most atheists  ;D

But not quite as modern as the Shroud of Turin hey?  ;)

You guys believe anything.

Grendel wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 11:34pm:

Fame and fortune.... been tried b4 Just a couple of years ago in China they had some really good frauds almost got by all the experts. Even if this one is real, doesn't mean its the missing link or even that the theory of man evolving from apes or a common ancestor is correct.

Debates on these topics always follow a predictable pattern ..due to :

1)  lack of conclusive scientific evidence

 2) the absence of open mindedness by debating opponents.

Ida  was not found last week...try 30 odd years ago..they have had plenty of time to study  this one. Its not a fake.

No one said it was fake.
Well I didn't.
I merely said it could have been.

Predictably some people, like yourself, ignore more salient points like;

Even if this one is real, doesn't mean its the missing link or even that the theory of man evolving from apes or a common ancestor is correct.


Quote:

Scepticism Some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to examine the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim. Ida was discovered in the 1980s in a fossil-rich area called Messel Pit, near Darmstadt in Germany and has been held in a private collection. Experts are somewhat sceptical of 'missing link' claims [AFP]   The scientific team concluded that she was not simply another lemur, but a new species. They have called her Darwinius masillae, to celebrate her place of origin and the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Jens Franzen, an expert on the Messel Pit, described Ida as "like the Eighth Wonder of the World", because of the extraordinary completeness of the skeleton. It was information "palaeontologists can normally only dream of", he said. In addition, Ida bears "a close resemblance to ourselves" he said, with nails instead of claws, a grasping hand and an opposable thumb - like humans and some other primates. But Franzen said some aspects of the teeth indicate she is not a direct ancestor - more of an "aunt" than a "grandmother". "She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line." Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity surrounding the new fossil. "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans." But he said that Ida would be "a welcome new addition" to the world of early primates.

If its an early primate its an early ancestor, 47 million years before the bible says is possible.

As I stated earlier, I find it hard to draw a comparison with human beings by looking at that fossil, but I'm not the expert.

In contrast, religious loons make a pilgrimage to worship a statue with red dye running from it's eyes, or a water stain on the wall, in the vain hope that they have proof of God's existence.

Amadd wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

As I stated earlier, I find it hard to draw a comparison with human beings by looking at that fossil, but I'm not the expert. In contrast, religious loons make a pilgrimage to worship a statue with red dye running from it's eyes, or a water stain on the wall, in the vain hope that they have proof of God's existence.

Not to mention the image of the virgin Mary on a piece of toast.
I had an image of Bart Simpson on mine this morning.

My understanding, and it has been a few years since reading a couple og biographies on Darwin is that he was a believer in God, went away from it after the death of his young daughter Annie, and came back to a faith many years later. He did not recant his theories as some church people would have us believe. He finally held no contradiction between a creator and evolution as seen in one of the most beautiful scientific paragraphs ever.


Quote:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Quote:

I had an image of Bart Simpson on mine this morning.

You should get that piece of toast up on Ebay asap Skip.
I once threw out a tazo of Bart chucking a brown eye and later learned
that it was banned and worth money....Doh!

wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 11:52am:

If its an early primate its an early ancestor, 47 million years before the bible says is possible.

".....Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey..."

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/May/Week3/15284798.jpg



LOL

Duped again!





You are all, soft in the head.

Scientists / archaeologists DIDN'T dig up this fossil, and find a date tag with it, stating that,

......."This fossil is 47 million years old."

Duh.

Anyone who believes that this thing is 47 million years old [because 'scientists' say that it is], is soft in the head.

This 47 million years is pure supposition.

Wow!

Talk about dogmatic religionists, grasping tightly onto their beliefs !!           ;D        ;D        ;D


Dictionary,
supposition = = an assumption or hypothesis.

Hey yadda, you want to buy my piece of toast with Bart Simpson on it?
I think you'll find the people who are soft in the head are the ones who think the earth is only 5 thousand years old, you are sooooooooooo gullible. ::)

wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 5:10pm:

Hey yadda, you want to buy my piece of toast with Bart Simpson on it?

Duh!

Whad-da-ya-think???          ;D         ;D         ;D

No.







Quote:

I think you'll find the people who are soft in the head are the ones who think the earth is only 5 thousand years old, you are sooooooooooo gullible. ::)

Well i guess, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we.           :D

You mean you really do think the earth is only 5,000 years old Yadda?

That's stunning  :o

Amadd wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 5:26pm:

You mean you really do think the earth is only 5,000 years old Yadda? That's stunning  :o

Yes, I thought Yadda was joking, but apparently not.

Your Bart Simpson toast relic reminds me of the Blackadder "Archbishop" episode

Edmund then got to his explaining their stock of relics, including Shrouds from Turin, wine from the marriage at Cana, splinters from the True Cross and artefacts created by Jesus as a carpenter. Bishop Percy complained that all of these were obviously fake and would not allow people to tell them apart from real relics. Archbishop Edmund stated that this was the point.

Bishop Percy revealed his own relic, a finger of Jesus, which he asserted to be genuine until Baldrick proceeded to explain to him that those were on sale in boxes of ten. Also available were the noses of Jesus, Saint Peter, and Saint Francis of Assisi, and the breasts of Joan of Arc. (Joan was not canonised by the Roman Catholic Church in real history until May 16, 1920).

Its not just yadda, most christians do, the born again are the worst.

Quote:

Your Bart Simpson toast relic reminds me of the Blackadder "Archbishop" episode

Boxes of Jesus fingers  ;D
I've got so many Blackadder episodes on DVD that I haven't even seen yet. I'll have to dig that one up. Better than watching yet another rerun of two and a half men.


Quote:

Its not just yadda, most christians do, the born again are the worst.

And they womder why people get so frustrated with the religious sometimes.

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 9:15am:

Amadd wrote on May 27th, 2009 at 5:26pm: You mean you really do think the earth is only 5,000 years old Yadda? That's stunning  :o Yes, I thought Yadda was joking, but apparently not. Your Bart Simpson toast relic reminds me of the Blackadder "Archbishop" episode Edmund then got to his explaining their stock of relics, including Shrouds from Turin, wine from the marriage at Cana, splinters from the True Cross and artefacts created by Jesus as a carpenter. Bishop Percy complained that all of these were obviously fake and would not allow people to tell them apart from real relics. Archbishop Edmund stated that this was the point. Bishop Percy revealed his own relic, a finger of Jesus, which he asserted to be genuine until Baldrick proceeded to explain to him that those were on sale in boxes of ten. Also available were the noses of Jesus, Saint Peter, and Saint Francis of Assisi, and the breasts of Joan of Arc. (Joan was not canonised by the Roman Catholic Church in real history until May 16, 1920).

locutius,

Thank you for that reference to Blackadder sketches.         ;D

It serves my point, quite well.

Exactly, in fact.

This "47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey." is a 'scientific' religious relic.



'Science' claims that the particular fossil, has an age of 47million years.

As i said above, and repeat here, this '47 million years', is pure supposition.

No one, can PROVE the age of that fossil!




+++++++++++


150 years ago, contemporary 'science' supposed that cholera was spread on night airs of London, on vapours.

Later it was established that the London cholera epidemics were spread through contamination of London's [ground] water supply.





About 150 years ago, 'science' insisted that the thought that doctors were the cause of the death of many post natal mothers in Europe, BECAUSE THE DOCTORS DIDN'T WASH THEIR HANDS BETWEEN EXAMINATIONS, was ridiculous.

Later the connection between the transmission of infection, and unwashed hands of [the] doctors, was proven.





PLEASE LISTEN UP...

Science only postulates its current understanding, and hypothesises [i.e. theories].

If you travelled back in time 500 years, and told a community of ppl in the UK, that a Jumbo jet weighing 400 tons, could fly through the air, you would have been burnt at the stake as a witch!

Take it as read, mankind is not the font of all knowledge and wisdom!

We [mankind] are proud, arrogant, ignorant creatures, puffed up with our own self importance.






Quote:

Amadd, Do you think that the minds, of some ppl who live today, are any less 'closed', than the minds of ppl who lived 500 years ago?

"All Aboard the Athiest bus"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225016818/10#10

Yadda, you're stating so much non-sequitor argument that I wouldn't know where to begin.


Quote:

Amadd, Do you think that the minds, of some ppl who live today, are any less 'closed', than the minds of ppl who lived 500 years ago?

I think that the information that we have today is far more vast and reliable than the information that existed 500 yrs ago. Hopefully that will continue for the next 500yrs..and so on.

There's nothing to say that every piece of accepted knowledge that we have today is entirely correct, but theories are proven over and over again through practise.
Do you think that it would've been possible to get a rocketship to the moon and back without relying on copious amounts of theory? Or do you think that they just lit a fuse and said "God will get us there and back'?

IMO, what you are displaying is mass selfishness and mass ignorance by turning your back on the hard work and impressive thinking of those around us and before us who have increased our knowledge, and thereby increasing our chances for survival.
Whatever your God tells you, my God tells me that it's OK to discard ridiculous notions like fat guys in red suits coming down the chimney and men rising from the dead.

Yadda, considering the wealth of acummulated, consistant and progressive knowledge that is available through literature, television, radio and in front of your very eyes; backed up and cross referenced through many disciplines of science and people of high intelliegence and learning. As opposed to (I'll assume well meaning) the imaginative stories of goat herders 5000 years ago.

I think there is not a damn thing I could say to you that could make you see things any other way than the way you do now.

Yes science changes it's answers because knowledge is progressive, look at technology as an example. So what you see as a flaw, "science changing it's mind" is in actuality science's great strength and validation. It is very simple.

Do you want me to admit that the predicted date (47 mill) of the evidence could be wrong? Sure I have no problem with that consideration. That would happen because our understanding of the facts as we know them change as well as those facts being constantly rechecked. I don't use the word facts here in an absolute sense, rather a working concept in flux. The fossil might be 100 million or 20 million years old.

Yadda

Quote:

Science only postulates its current understanding, and hypothesises [i.e. theories].

Yes exactly, and it is progressive. Part of the reason that we are talking to each other with the help of controlled electrical curcuitry instead of over a trading blanket with both of us doing our best to stay upwind of each other is progress.

Yadda

Quote:

If you travelled back in time 500 years, and told a community of ppl in the UK, that a Jumbo jet weighing 400 tons, could fly through the air, you would have been burnt at the stake as a witch!

That is very true, but it would have been at the hands of the religious. AND I would have been right. Them burning me however would not have made the claim untrue though.

Yadda

Quote:

Take it as read, mankind is not the font of all knowledge and wisdom!

At this current juncture, yes that is again true. But I think it achievable given enough time. We're on the right track.

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

Yadda, considering the wealth of acummulated, consistant and progressive knowledge that is available through literature, television, radio and in front of your very eyes; backed up and cross referenced through many disciplines of science and people of high intelliegence and learning. As opposed to (I'll assume well meaning) the imaginative stories of goat herders 5000 years ago. I think there is not a damn thing I could say to you that could make you see things any other way than the way you do now. Yes science changes it's answers because knowledge is progressive, look at technology as an example. So what you see as a flaw, "science changing it's mind" is in actuality science's great strength and validation. It is very simple.

locutius,

That, is an assertion, which you may make.

But is it can be demonstrably shown that, often times, it is only the scientific 'heretics' of their age, that are the ones who apply such a methodology of 'scientific process' to facts and evidence.

Entertaining the thought that science, and its 'holy relics' [hypothesises] are wrong, is often 'unthinkable'.



I can agree, that true 'scientific process' is progressive.

But the problem is, when we come upon human 'intellect', human pride, and 'vested interests' [those who are able to make money out of the current scientific assumptions], very little new knowledge can be accepted by the current 'experts' in their field.






Quote:

Yadda [quote]Take it as read, mankind is not the font of all knowledge and wisdom!

At this current juncture, yes that is again true. But I think it achievable given enough time. We're on the right track.

[/quote]


Really?           ;D

I would rather say that from previous experience we can be sure that we are being led to undetermined and questionable 'destination', by our own self-pride, in our accomplishments and knowledge.


If you doubt such a conclusion, just look at the current state of mankind's affairs, worldwide.


Yes, in the last several thousands of years, we [mankind] may have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge.

But are we [mankind] any wiser?

I think not.





"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."
Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

Do you want me to admit that the predicted date (47 mill) of the evidence could be wrong? Sure I have no problem with that consideration. That would happen because our understanding of the facts as we know them change as well as those facts being constantly rechecked. I don't use the word facts here in an absolute sense, rather a working concept in flux. The fossil might be 100 million or 20 million years old.

locutius said,

".....The fossil might be 100 million or 20 million years old."

So, there may be an 'error factor' of plus or minus 40 million of years then??

Oh really???                 :)




Well if you can make that concession [that there may be, an error factor of plus or minus 40 million of years], can you concede that the fossil may be, even, another 20 million years younger?

i.e. Why can't this fossil be, say, 4 thousand years old???

Hmmmmm????




locutius,

I am not being facetious, in suggesting this.

I think that suggesting that this fossil may be 4,000 years old, is quite within the realms of possibility.

Can you prove that such a suggestion is ridiculous???

Quote:

i.e. Why can't this fossil be, say, 4 thousand years old??? Hmmmmm????

4,000 years!!! I doubt if it's even possible to get a fossil that young.
Sam Newman is older than that.

Amadd wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:

Quote: i.e. Why can't this fossil be, say, 4 thousand years old??? Hmmmmm???? 4,000 years!!! I doubt if it's even possible to get a fossil that young.

Amadd,

You are mistaken.

After being taught at school that it takes millions of years for fossils to form, you, and many others have made fallacious assumptions about the 'age of dinosaurs'.

N.B.
Under the right environmental circumstances, dead organic material can 'fossilise' [petrify] in under 20 years.

That is proven FACT.

i.e. It has been proven [observed to happen], SCIENTIFICALLY.




Quote:

. .....it has been proven, that petrification of organic material can take place, in less than 20 years. http://hissheep.org/evolution/proof_of_rapid_petrification.html http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5179/ Google, rapid petrification http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=rapid+petrification&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Think of the consequences of this *fact*, on our understanding of the age of [dinosaur] fossils.

at...
"Multiculti - preserve cultural id amid enemies"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242606209/51#51

I can make a concession that scientists and people can be mistaken. I think it is very likely that the fossil is the age they say it is, considering that experts far beyond my enthusiastic but unqualified interest, would have taken great care in it and complementary evidence.

I think almost anything is possible but that there are degrees of likelihood. 4000 years old? No, I think I have more chance of winning division 1 Lotto 52 weeks in a row than of this being 4000 years old. I'll put my trust in science.

I accept the possibility that I might be wrong about God. But I don't believe it. That's just me, I like evidence and for God there is none. If you have personal evidence then congratulations but you need to accept that it is ultimately unsharable and unverifiable.

I believe with conviction that the universe is 10's of billions of years old and the Earth billions, that it being here is no more astounding than if it had not been here, there is no afterlife, and that the universe follows cold impersonal laws, nonetheless that there can still be great meaning in what we can strive for even though the universe will probably just fizzle out.

Yadda, it is more than just about what it takes to create fossils. That's why I say complimentary evidence. Continental drift, mountain forming, other geological considerations. The outer planets and the sun. Speed of light and the age of trees.

What is it about science that contradicts what you believe? Do you really take Genisis literally? Do you really think God could have so little imagination?

Quote:

After being taught at school that it takes millions of years for fossils to form, you, and many others have made fallacious assumptions about the 'age of dinosaurs'.

The dating of fossils and how long they took to fossilise are two different matters.
You may be correct that organic materials are able to petrify under specific conditions, that's if the "scientific evidence" that you rely on is also correct.
I suppose Noah just didn't have room for the dinasaurs on his ark hey?

Amadd wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 12:16am:

Quote: Yes, just like the lost link looks more modern then most atheists  ;D But not quite as modern as the Shroud of Turin hey?  ;) You guys believe anything.

It is very amusing to see how atheists unsuccessfully try to own Darwin as one of them exposing themselves as empty duds without spirit or intellectual capacity of their own. Instead the nature of atheism becomes clearer by observing historical deeds of mass murdering and despotism of the real atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc.

But then again, atheists will suck anything to prove themselves as valid alternative to theism.  ;)

Quote:

It is very amusing to see how atheists unsuccessfully try to own Darwin as one of them exposing themselves as empty duds without spirit or intellectual capacity of their own. Instead the nature of atheism becomes clearer by observing historical deeds of mass murdering and despotism of the real atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc. But then again, atheists will suck anything to prove themselves as valid alternative to theism.   ;)

What is really amusing is how those who believe the words of the bible word for word label those who don't as "athiests" and throw them all into the same basket.
Could it be that the inherant capacity of the steadfast believers is too overstretched to fathom that the so called "athiests" come in a vast array of opinions, experiences and ideas?
The common theme amongst the unfortunately labelled "athiests" is that they find parts, some, or most of theistic teachings to be illogical.
Regarding moral views, political views, etc., many "athiests" have much more in common with theists than they do with their so-called "brotherhood of athiests".

Is it logical to assume that one is a supportor of dictatorships because they may conclude that the bible contains inaccurate information? Well, you can draw your own conclusions, but IMO, that type of thinking belongs back in the dark ages.

Does it really matter if Darwin believed in theistic teachings or not? No, it's what he provided for the furtherment of understanding here on earth which has so far been realised to be of great importance.
If you don't see his work as being of any importance, then that's just your opinion. Most would disagree.

tallowood wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 7:36pm:

Amadd wrote on May 27th, 2009 at 12:16am: Quote: Yes, just like the lost link looks more modern then most atheists  ;D But not quite as modern as the Shroud of Turin hey?  ;) You guys believe anything. It is very amusing to see how atheists unsuccessfully try to own Darwin as one of them exposing themselves as empty duds without spirit or intellectual capacity of their own. Instead the nature of atheism becomes clearer by observing historical deeds of mass murdering and despotism of the real atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc. But then again, atheists will suck anything to prove themselves as valid alternative to theism.  ;)

Hilarious. Everytime you say it, it's still hilarious. You'll be telling me the Popes were all Saints next.

Logic, Reason and Evidence are the valid alternative to Faith.

Darwin was a believer that did not let his faith get in the way or contradict his intelligence or reality.

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 4:36pm:

I can make a concession that scientists and people can be mistaken. I think it is very likely that the fossil is the age they say it is, considering that experts far beyond my enthusiastic but unqualified interest, would have taken great care in it and complementary evidence. I think almost anything is possible but that there are degrees of likelihood. 4000 years old? No, I think I have more chance of winning division 1 Lotto 52 weeks in a row than of this being 4000 years old. I'll put my trust in science.

locutius,

Personally, i am prepared to put my trust in true scientific process.

i.e. A process which dismisses error, by appraising FACTS and EVIDENCE, and proving TRUTH.

Definition,
science = = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.







Often what 'modern science' presents as 'unassailable' truth, 'common sense' and 'proof', is plain old INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

And [yet!] people [Joe Public] still have faith, and they still believe - in the veracity of all 'modern science'.

LOL

It astounds me, how soft headed, many ppl are!!!

Google,
scientific fraud
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=scientific+fraud+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=



But quite honestly locutius, i believe that you don't even see how bankrupt your confidence in the 'modern scientific method' is.








locutius,

READ, AND LISTEN TO YOUR OWN WORDS!!!

In your own statement,

....."I'll put my trust in science.",

.....you are effectively saying is,

"I believe that a particular fossil, is 47 million years old, because 'scientists', and 'experts' say it is."

Where is YOUR respect for true scientific rigour and process?

You believe that a particular fossil, is 47 million years old, even in the absence of, and without 'science' presenting, conclusive, objective evidence.

i.e. Without proving the assertion, with the rigour of true, scientific process!




In your own statement,

"I'll put my trust in science.",

.....you are effectively saying,

......I TRUST, AND I BELIEVE IN THE INTEGRITY OF MEN, MANKIND, AND A PSEUDO 'SCIENTIFIC' COMMUNITY.

AND I DON'T NEED ASSERTIONS MADE BY 'SCIENTISTS' TO BE PROVED BY BONA-FIDE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.



Good luck.

:o

---

Are you asking me to say that Scientific Fraud does not exist? Of course it does but it has a very important and aggressive check. And that is other scientists, a world of scientists in fact.

Curiously it is the creation scientists as a group who are the most ridiculed and regularly found to be accused of fraud, bad science or half truths.

It is interesting that you use the word bankrupt, because I would suggest that the most bankrupt group in terms of sincere research for truth are the ones (eg creation scientists) that have an original starting point or agenda and then attempt to make everything fit that original position.

I also understand that theories for scientists are by default original positions but I also know that that is why theories/original positions change. It is the scientists that adhere to an unchangable original position and poo poo anything that contradicts a strict interpretation to a baseless faith that in my mind are the ones least to trust.

What can I prove? What can any of us prove absolutely? But using common sense, observation, comparisons of knowledge across many disciplines AND an open mind, we choose between the sensible and nonesensical. It is about determining the weight and authority of different evidences.

EVEN BETTER THAN AN IMAGE OF MARMITE,
......IS AN IMAGE OF 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD T-REX SOFT TISSUE.

LOL

Well, 'science' declares it so, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!

LOL




According to modern science, SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS.



"Here are some closer-up photos of the blood vessels in the Schweitzer T-Rex."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zJgf_wDYGjQ/SKH9iHlg8dI/AAAAAAAAAUM/GwmRY-qBzUw/s400/TRex+Blood.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zJgf_wDYGjQ/SKH9iHlg8dI/AAAAAAAAAUM/GwmRY-qBzUw/s400/TRex+Blood.jpg


Google....
soft tissue t-rex
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=soft+tissue+t-rex&btnG=Google+Search&meta=






Quote:

HERE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. "A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD THIGHBONE, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation." Soft tissue taken from a 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD THIGHBONE of a T-rex??? What poppycock! Google.... soft tissue t-rex http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=soft+tissue+t-rex&btnG=Google+Search&met... Item at the National Geographic Society site.... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html According to modern science, SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS. ....Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS???

at....
"Multiculti - preserve cultural id amid enemies"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242606209/30#30

Yadda wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 12:07pm:

Well, 'science' declares it so, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!

I wouldn't go that far. I have offered qualifiers for my trust in science.


Yadda wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 12:07pm:

....Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS???[/size][/i]

I believe miracles and anomolies are just events waiting for knowledge to catch up with observation. Or it's a mistake. At the least I'm happy to give them time to see what they have truely found.

But don't you believe in supernatural miracles?

Quote:

....Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS???

I don't think they're talking about a chunk of T-Rex steak off the bone, they're talking about vessels within the bone which would also be commonly found if they were to break open more fossils.

Amadd wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 1:23pm:

Quote: ....Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS??? I don't think they're talking about a chunk of T-Rex steak off the bone, they're talking about vessels within the bone which would also be commonly found if they were to break open more fossils.

Yes, thanks Amadd, that's what I forgot to add. That was my take on it as well. I think it was maybe innocently misrepresented?


Quote:

The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels. The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed.

There is talk about a material having structural qualities, they do not, in the article claim it to be tissue or flesh.

Amadd wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 1:23pm:

Quote: ....Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS??? I don't think they're talking about a chunk of T-Rex steak off the bone, they're talking about vessels within the bone which would also be commonly found if they were to break open more fossils.

Amadd,

Well you believe that, if you want to.

If it gives you comfort.








locutius said,


Quote:

I believe miracles and anomolies are just events waiting for knowledge to catch up with observation. Or it's a mistake. At the least I'm happy to give them time to see what they have truely found. But don't you believe in supernatural miracles?

locutius,

Like you, i am willing to say that,

"I believe miracles and anomolies are just events waiting for knowledge to catch up with observation."



I hope you didn't fall off your seat!         ;D

I also believe that the more humankind has learned, in the knowledge we have gained in the last several thousands of years, the more that knowledge should convince us, of how little we truly know at present, about our true circumstances.

locutius wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 1:28pm:

Quote: The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels. The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed. There is talk about a material having structural qualities, they do not, in the article claim it to be tissue or flesh.

Actually, the tissue has been gene sequenced, and that it resembles "Chicken Proteins".


Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins
12 Apr 2007 ... Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins ... extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html


But i wouldn't know.

Yadda, the wow-er! and the stunner





Quote:

You mean you really do think the earth is only x,000 years old Yadda? That's stunning

Amadd

;D       ;D        ;D







Yadda said,

"....I firmly believe in creation, and i believe in a 'Young Earth'."

at...
"Evolution, Dinosaurs, and Creation"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224743792/0#0

Yes, it seems they have had some time but there is still understandable debate on the findings considering the incredibility of it all.

When I read the first link you posted I was looking at the webpage date (28-09) not the article date all the time with a feeling a deja vu.

Quote:

Amadd, Well you believe that, if you want to. If it gives you comfort.

It's really neither here nor there Yadda. I consider human understanding to be a work in progress, not a finished product.
It's more about the journey than the destination, as we're all destined to the same fate. You probably disagree with me there, and I wouldn't be surprised if you need the carrot of an everlasting existence to dictate your path for you.

Therein probably lies the crux of most, if not all religions, in that they are offered to be something that can be relied upon totally, fully, and with undying trust in this unreliable world.

Amadd wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 11:28am:

:o

WOW! I never saw Mr Spock with sunglasses before.

This thread is sooooo.... absurd.

Yadda - Do you also believe that the Earth is flat, supported by four pillars and that there is a firmament that divides the waters of Earth from the waters of Heaven, and that the stars are actually holes in the firmament that allow the light of heaven through?

Can't trust those astronauts - atheists every last one of them - even Neil Armstrong. He's just pretending to be Christian.

---

Ahh yes. Trekkies would've picked up on that one I'm sure.
You see what you wanna see I suppose  8-)

muso wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 1:07pm:

This thread is sooooo.... absurd. Yadda - Do you also believe that the Earth is flat, supported by four pillars and that there is a firmament that divides the waters of Earth from the waters of Heaven, and that the stars are actually holes in the firmament that allow the light of heaven through?

Duh.

muso,

Why would i believe that?


Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;.....

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.


http://www.seoco.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ii_earth_in_space.gif





muso,

According to modern science, SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS.

Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS???

Is it an unreasonable question?



more at....
"Multiculti - preserve cultural id amid enemies"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242606209/30#30


Google....
soft tissue t-rex
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=soft+tissue+t-rex&btnG=Google+Search&meta=



Perhaps someone with 'common sense', you know, one of those 'rational' evolutionists, can explain how SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS?

Because as a rational person, its beyond my ken.

Hey, yadda, speaking of common sense, how did Mary have Jesus if she was a virgin?
Forget the ol fairy tales, answer me with "common sense". While you're at it,  how come its not mentioned in the old testament about dinosaurs?
If what you say is correct everybody must have had a T rex in the backyard.

wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 3:55pm:

Hey, yadda, speaking of common sense, how did Mary have Jesus if she was a virgin? Forget the ol fairy tales, answer me with "common sense". While you're at it,  how come its not mentioned in the old testament about dinosaurs? If what you say is correct everybody must have had a T rex in the backyard.

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the OT.


They are called 'dragons', 'leviathan', and 'behemoth'.

There may be even more names.

Those are the ones i know.



God talks to Job,

Job 40:15
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16  Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17  He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18  His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.



Are there any creatures alive today that have a 'tail like a cedar [i.e. a tree trunk]'?



"....his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly."

http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/dinos/images/field_guide_trex.jpg

T-rex was clearly a meat eater, but perhaps there were other dinosaurs that, "eateth grass as an ox.", which had large 'loins' [hindquarters].iAs to 'how did Mary have Jesus if she was a virgin?'

Jesus himself declared that what is impossible with man, is possible for God.

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


Isaiah 55:8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.




ALSO....


Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Immanuel = = God is with us, or, God is in our presence.


God among us,

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8  Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

That's your best work yet. :) :D ;D :o ::)

So how come we haven't found tools made out of "dragon bones"?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Genesis 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So to summarise, God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.

1 Samuel 2:8  He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

Job 9:6  Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Psalms 75:3  The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it.

Ezekial 1:22  And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

Matthew 24:29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

(Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few k above our heads.)


Sometimes it's best to just say nothing and just let the Bible do the talking.

I rest my case.

muso wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 1:07pm:

Amadd wrote on May 29th, 2009 at 11:28am: :o WOW! I never saw Mr Spock with sunglasses before. This thread is sooooo.... absurd. Yadda - Do you also believe that the Earth is flat, supported by four pillars and that there is a firmament that divides the waters of Earth from the waters of Heaven, and that the stars are actually holes in the firmament that allow the light of heaven through? Can't trust those astronauts - atheists every last one of them - even Neil Armstrong. He's just pretending to be Christian.

Welcome back muso ^^..you always could make me laugh.. ;D

Quote:

(Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few k above our heads.)

Seems relying or ridicule and lies is spilling over to every topic you partake in Muso.  ::)

Quote:

Matthew 24:29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Quote:

(Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few k above our heads.)

That's the way it reads to me.
Matthew talks about seperate instances. If the sun was darkened then of course the moon would not be seen, but he talks about the moon having it's own light.
And it wouldn't be possible for the stars to fall unless they were within our atmosphere. I wonder how small he thought stars are? It sounds as though he's talking about them sprinkling down to earth, but we'd be well destroyed if they came anywhere near us.
It seems to me that Matthew is the liar....Oh, and you too  ;D

lol then you unfortunately are stupider than muso is dishonest amadd.

clearly if the sun goes dark then the moon cannot reflect any light upon us, we have all seen eclipses, for example.

we already are all aware of falling stars...  they are called meteorites.

I have no doubt there are more things in heaven and earth than in all our imaginings.

Jesus( if he existed) was nothing more than a con man, "oh I'm the son of god" the problem is the retards who believe it.

muso wrote on May 31^st, 2009 at 9:29am:

Genesis 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. So to summarise, God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1 Samuel 2:8  He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. Job 9:6  Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Psalms 75:3  The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Ezekial 1:22  And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. Matthew 24:29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few k above our heads.) Sometimes it's best to just say nothing and just let the Bible do the talking. I rest my case.

muso,

I don't know the answer to your musings, and i'm sure that i can't explain these things to your satisfaction.

Same with skippy.

We are on different paths.








2 Peter 3:3
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.






A topical image....
Ben Cousins clearly has little respect for someone.
I wonder to whom, he was directing his contempt?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/static/profile/avatars/avatar51612_3.gif

In much the same way, i think that this image exemplifies the same contempt many men today have for their God.

I am sorry for you muso, that you clearly have no fear of God.



Matthew 13:36
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.


Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Yadda, you seem to be under the impression that anyone who doesn't believe in god is wrong, runs with "the herd" or is some how evil, you are wrong.
I have had a  religious up bringing and I've heard all your little bible dittos ad nauseum, the fact I choose not to believe them has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge on the subject, it has everything to do with assessing all options and not just the fire and brimstone option you choose.

There's a show about it on ABC Thursday 8:30pm.