Is there a connection between Islam, Judaism and Christianity

[wmw999 2,117]

Good point. I was sleepy, and didn't think it through.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

"Russel's Teapot".

Isn't that where Occam soaks his razor overnight?

[devildog 0]

Quote

While science can't "prove" God doesn't and never has existed, it certainly can prove the universe can exist without the need for God to create it -- and it has.

You guys keep saying that, but still haven't linked to anything. I mean, you have linked to some things, but none of them ever showed a universe popping up from absolutely nothing. It still came from something, and the argument would go, that something (eventually) came from God. For example, there was an article along the lines a while back where Hawking was suggesting that the universe had to come into being (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator), it wasn't a choice, due to the law of gravity. As mentioned before, that's still a universe coming from something, and who or what set gravity up in the first place?

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 2,384]

>looked up your first example Anchiornis. The problem I have with this is this was a
>dinosour living 160 million yrs ago, and it always had wings . . .

?? No, it didn't have wings. It probably couldn't even fly. It had four legs - two big ones in the rear, two wimpy ones in the front, like a jackrabbit. The front legs had claws on them. The only thing that set it apart from other dinosaurs was that it had feathers.

>but it doesnt prove a lizard started to sprout wings

And that's exactly the point. No dinosaur ever "sprouted wings." The front legs just got longer, the feathers got better and the claws went away. If you compared Anchiornis to Pedopenna (its ancestor) you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Anchiornus just has more feathers. Neither one can fly anyway. It's microevolution, not macroevolution."

If you compared Anchiornus to Scansoriopteryx, you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Scansoriopteryx just has more feathers and slightly longer front legs. And it can glide just a little. But that's not a wing! It's microevolution, not macroevolution!"


If you compared Scansoriopteryx to Archaeopteryx, you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Scansoriopteryx just has more feathers and slightly longer front legs. And it can glide really well. But gliding isn't true flying! It's microevolution, not macroevolution!"

If you compared Archaeopteryx to Ichthyornis, you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Icthyornis looks similar, it just has a bigger breastbone and more muscles. And it can fly pretty well, but that's not much different than gliding. But a change in how a bird flies isn't that big a deal! It's microevolution, not macroevolution!"

But compare Pedopenna to a bald eagle and you ask "woah - I don't believe that little lizard just sprouted wings and turrned into an eagle. No way no how." But that's because it's easy to ignore those small changes which, over 200 million years, really do add up.

(And if you want to see this process in the middle, look up Idiurus Macrotis. It's a living transitional fossil.)

Again, it's next to impossible to believe that the Grand Canyon just popped into existence one day because of a little water. But give that little water 15 million years to do its work and what it creates can be mind-boggling.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Again, it's next to impossible to believe that the Grand Canyon just popped into existence one day because of a little water. .

water had nothing to do with it - Slartibartfast and his team took nearly 3 months to carve that thing out.

I wouldn't just belittle their hard work. They have families to feed and take pride in results.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

Quote

For example, there was an article along the lines a while back where Hawking was suggesting that the universe had to come into being (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator), it wasn't a choice, due to the law of gravity. As mentioned before, that's still a universe coming from something, and who or what set gravity up in the first place?

As long as you continue to hold on to the idea that there HAD to of been a creator, I suppose it will never make sense to you, but the reality is the universe doesn't require a creator. Particles pop in and out of existence all around us every day. This happens with both positive and negative particles. When the two meet, they annihilate each other. All that is needed is a slight imbalance and suddenly the entire universe exists. In fact, what you're looking at in the universe are the remains of the imbalance at its beginning. That beginning is the beginning of everything that is knowable; time, space, gravity . . . everything. "Before" it simply doesn't exist.

The upshot of this is there is no space or time for "God" to have existed "before" the Big Bang.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

Your last sentence is correct. There was no "before." God is extra-temporal.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

Quote

God is extra-temporal.

/sigh

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[beowulf 1]

I think that means he gets extra tempura with his sushi!

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

I think that means he gets extra tempura with his sushi!

MMMMMM.......Japanese.........

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[mikempb 0]

Quote

>looked up your first example Anchiornis. The problem I have with this is this was a
>dinosour living 160 million yrs ago, and it always had wings . . .

?? No, it didn't have wings. It probably couldn't even fly. It had four legs - two big ones in the rear, two wimpy ones in the front, like a jackrabbit. The front legs had claws on them. The only thing that set it apart from other dinosaurs was that it had feathers.

>but it doesnt prove a lizard started to sprout wings

And that's exactly the point. No dinosaur ever "sprouted wings." The front legs just got longer, the feathers got better and the claws went away. If you compared Anchiornis to Pedopenna (its ancestor) you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Anchiornus just has more feathers. Neither one can fly anyway. It's microevolution, not macroevolution."

If you compared Anchiornus to Scansoriopteryx, you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Scansoriopteryx just has more feathers and slightly longer front legs. And it can glide just a little. But that's not a wing! It's microevolution, not macroevolution!"


If you compared Scansoriopteryx to Archaeopteryx, you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Scansoriopteryx just has more feathers and slightly longer front legs. And it can glide really well. But gliding isn't true flying! It's microevolution, not macroevolution!"

If you compared Archaeopteryx to Ichthyornis, you'd say "there's no difference! Well, almost none. Icthyornis looks similar, it just has a bigger breastbone and more muscles. And it can fly pretty well, but that's not much different than gliding. But a change in how a bird flies isn't that big a deal! It's microevolution, not macroevolution!"

But compare Pedopenna to a bald eagle and you ask "woah - I don't believe that little lizard just sprouted wings and turrned into an eagle. No way no how." But that's because it's easy to ignore those small changes which, over 200 million years, really do add up.

(And if you want to see this process in the middle, look up Idiurus Macrotis. It's a living transitional fossil.)

Again, it's next to impossible to believe that the Grand Canyon just popped into existence one day because of a little water. But give that little water 15 million years to do its work and what it creates can be mind-boggling.

Bill I didnt ignore this post I was bombarded in my post forum , and didnt have time to, I wanted to tell you I dont have an answer for this, and wont have time this week to look into it, but It has my attention and will definatley be looked into.....

[wmw999 2,117]

If you look into it, do some reading on the science of the critter and evolution in general -- please don't just ask someone who will give you "the answer," because then you haven't looked into it. Some people have an answer for everything.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mikempb 0]

Thanks Wendy, I will. Every so often I come across something that I can't answer. That doesn't mean my whole belief system falls apart in fact I find when I look into something that threatens it I come out of it stronger when I do get my answers. If I don't have these discussions in here I would never get this kind of input that's very important to me.

[mikempb 0]

Ok no easy answer here!!! For every site that supports this, there is one that doesnt for instance:
The provenance of the Scansoriopteryx type specimen is uncertain, as it was obtained from private fossil dealers who did not record exact geologic data
I got that from WIKIPEDIA and as far as all the tremendous controversey around Archaeopteryx , forget it, Im not saying one side is right or wrong but in order to even use your theory I have to find reliable sources to read that isnt partial to one or the other and thats where it gets difficult. The ONLY thing I think to do is read both and arrive at my conclution from there. Again that will take a long time so dont be surprised if you get a post from me a week, a month, or who knows when about this.....

[Coreece 189]

Quote

when I look into something that threatens it I come out of it stronger when I do get my answers.

+1, though I would raather use the word "challenges" than "threatens."

Quote

If I don't have these discussions in here I would never get this kind of input that's very important to me.

Agreed...I often look at these threads as a real world simulation that helps expose more angles/prespectives that helps to better prepare me for more efficient real world evangelism.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[mikempb 0]

yea, there is a responsibiltity if you decide to state your opinion to people ( who ask for it ) because if you have a lot of holes or unanswered quest. that may help have the opposite effect and make them have even less faith....
This is the reason I wrote in my thread to the skeptics to doubt your doubts, thats what I do, If I get doubt about something I tackle it head on...

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...but the reality is the universe doesn't require a creator.

Maybe, maybe not...how can you be so sure?

Quote

Particles pop in and out of existence all around us every day. This happens with both positive and negative particles. When the two meet, they annihilate each other. All that is needed is a slight imbalance and suddenly the entire universe exists. In fact, what you're looking at in the universe are the remains of the imbalance at its beginning.

Thanks for the science class. Too bad it misses the point of it all.

Quote

That beginning is the beginning of everything that is knowable; time, space, gravity . . . everything. "Before" it simply doesn't exist.

Depends on your definition of "knowable" I don't think I would be wrong to assume that you meant physical manifestations.

Quote

The upshot of this is there is no space or time for "God" to have existed "before" the Big Bang.

The upshot is that you think that "God" needs to exist in space and time. There's that old, tiresome need for physical proof again. *sigh*.


It's funny as hell.
"I don't see no physical proof so YOU are wrong and I am right!"

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,384]

>The provenance of the Scansoriopteryx type specimen is uncertain . . .

Yep. That means that its age is uncertain, since they could not date the strata it was in. Instead of being able to say "yeah, that guy is 121-125 million years old" they have to live with a much larger uncertainty, in this case 121-168 million years.

Every fossil out there has some uncertainty associated with it. The biggest uncertainty is any kind of soft tissue, since that doesn't fossilize - so you have to reconstruct the animal from the skeleton. Feathers are _sometimes_ preserved so there is often some better data there. Sometimes it's possible to carbon date very accurately; the substrate and the animal contain carbon datable material that matches. Sometimes it doesn't match as well. Sometimes (as in the Scansoriopteryx fossil) they just didn't take good notes.

Another problem is that we all evolved to eat things. Animals eat other animals and plants, bacteria eat corpses. Which means that we've been evolving better and better ways over the past 100 million years or so to get rid of all those animals that might otherwise become fossils. (Which is a good thing if you think about it - otherwise we'd be living on top of hundreds of feet of dead animals!) So finding a fossil requires a lot of luck.

Even so, the fossil record is remarkably complete. We can trace most of the steps between dinosaurs and birds. We can trace back and see how whales evolved from land animals and how lizards evolved from amphibians. We can watch horse evolution and cow evolution. We can even see how dinosaurs evolved into mammals over the course of 300 million years.

And it's getting better all the time. We're still discovering fossils every day, and while most are pretty common ("oh look more seashell fossils") occasionally you get one that fits into a previous gap between two other transitional fossils - making the gap half the size and teaching us even more about how today's animals came to be. For example, just last year scientists discovered a fossil of Australopithecus Sediba, a transitional fossil between the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo (the human lineage.) That fills in another tiny piece of the long line that stretches from us all the way back to the earliest prokaryote.

[aarco 0]

If people are to scared to talk about outer space and old systems of data - -- the truth - reality- time - why we do what we do - how us and others live- most would have no real connection built-if most doctors are wrong about health and healing - and then see a false god pull a Jesus trick dearing flue season- -wear do most people choose to act closer with. I want to feel better - ali baba "please tell me the truth about the matrix - 'please' - ali chooses not to run to the BIBLE and say - if I start talking about this stuff - it might kill me - rather ali and his @$#%%^ ego that chooses to kill his naughbors says storys about 7th stare this and real glowing water - and Isrealites stealing his bearth right - and his worrior quest to shoe ALA how he can be glorified rather then ALA - - its all a Drug and A lie - I have eaten and breathed all of these religions - if you have faith in yourself and science you will find the BIBLE - If your looking to set family names straight in the middle east - and give light to an intergalactic war study as in learn to say - what is this - to the Koran - -- every thing else is what we make of it - look for UFOs in China and south Africa - But believe that Christ is quite an authority on space and WAR - - if your a Skydiver - you might get picked up as a Starfighter someday - don't Bleed for the wrong things- Love is cool - but geating stabed in the back by a women is very stargate - If the spaceship lands it better be teaching the right thing - not just barking orders - nuclear micro power augment -I blow up monster alien babys -- peace -that - might have been to much:)

Having something never beats doing (>|<)
Iam building things - Iam working on my mind- I am going to change this world - its what I came here 4- - -

[BIGUN 1,050]

I'm going to skip over one post because you and Paul have given me quite a bit of information that has led me to research... And admittedly, reinforced my own arguments regarding science vs. God. As I take what you and Paul have written, I came across one website that cracked me up and have to share. It sounds so "us."

Quote

In their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004) Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek claim to prove that Christianity is true beyond a reasonable doubt (pages 25, 30-32, 134, 200, 203, 213, 231, 247, 273, 275, 293, 301, 354, 373, 383, 387, 388). Their foreword, written by David Limbaugh, claims that “powerful and convincing proof exists that Christianity is the one true religion...” (page 7). These are bold claims. Are they true? Let's find out:

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be a Christian"

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[virgin-burner 1]

in fact there is a connection; they're ALL fucked in the head!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[remibond 0]

Slightly random fact time, but it is vaguely religiony. Of Britain's 85,002 prison inmates in 2010, 26,830 of them claimed to have no religion. This was the largest denomination of people. 40,130 claimed to be some denomination of Christian (20,526 Anglican, 14,437 Roman Catholic, 5,167 other), 10,437 were Muslim and only 233 were Jewish.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

In a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked ‘No religion’.

When the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-surveys-statistics

So less than a third of the inmates claims to have no religion, yet more than one third of the population claims to have no religion. Therefore, based on your source (or lack there-off) and my source, we can conclude that religious people tend to be more criminal than irreligious people.

Personally I usually try to avoid to play the game "which demographic is the most evil?". It's a game that's usually played by... well, evil people.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So less than a third of the inmates claims to have no religion, yet more than one third of the population claims to have no religion. Therefore, based on your source (or lack there-off) and my source, we can conclude that religious people tend to be more criminal than irreligious people.

Personally I usually try to avoid to play the game "which demographic is the most evil?". It's a game that's usually played by... well, evil people.

Marinus...you do realize that you stabbed yourself in the back here, right?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Marinus...you do realize that you stabbed yourself in the back here, right?

I do realize that. I also realize I ignored sources that would lead to an outcome that was less favourable for us heathens, in favour for this source. Finally I realize that I use the word "usually" in stead of "always" to proof my evilness... well part time evilness that is. (MUUWAAHAHA!!!! et al)

I just countered bad statistics with slightly better statistics, but in the end the whole "Who is morally superior" debate is an exercise in futility (as beautifully shown in my source btw, the same enquette yields two drastically different percentages for irreligion.) Besides that, the whole debate has a slight after-taste of bigotry and hate-mongering, so long ago I decided everyone sucks equally bad on average. Except charismatics, charismatics are slightly more evil then everyone else.