[miStar]

Originally Posted by ATLian

miStar,

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom at a temperature of 0 Kelvin.

This means that this hold whether or not the earth exists, or even if the earth was to crush into a meteorite that would case it to now orbit around it's axis once every 71 hours.

Just a parting thought: even if the day was defined as a single rotation around the sun instead of using the caesium 13 atom's raditation, what would be wrong with using that definition to measure the past time? Can't I say, for example, that the Great Pyramid is as tall as 190,000 Coca Cola bottles placed on top of each other, even though coke bottles did not exist when the pyramids were created?

You completely missed my point, which was this: People always talk about the creation story and sciences big bang theory as two very separate ideas which cannot co-exist. Once you start thinking about how they could both be true, things get very interesting. Thats what i meant when i said this imediately after i talked about the 6 days thing:
I am not saying that thats exactly what happened, i'm just trying to open up your mind to the possibilities and stop taking the bible (and science) so literally, like everything is cast in stone and always was and has been. The only thing that always was and has been is... (i'll let you guess that one )

About the definition of a second, I hope you realise that the concept of a second existed long before the scientific definition came to be. For example, before 1967 the scientific definition of a second was: the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.. When we are talking about the bible creation story, we cannot use the current definition of time because the writer of that story did not use it. If you want to understand the message, you have to look at the words from the messengers point of view if you have any hope of understanding the message.

Originally Posted by ATLian

Your assumption that mt.everest was in existance during Noahs age is just that....an assumption.

Mt. Everest has been around for millions of years. The geological events that produced it happened millions of years before Noah's flood. If Noah's flood happened 5,000 years ago, then there is absolutely no doubt that Mt. Everest existed during that flood!

You have "no doubt"? Why, because carbon dating said says so?
Who said mt.everest is 6 million years old? The scientists and their carbon dating.
And who says Noahs flood happened 5,00 years ago? The bible
Can you see your argument slowly starting to fall apart?

Originally Posted by ATLian

He did not?! Says who? You? Have you talked to Jonah about this then? Were you there? Did a scientist follow Jonah all his life with a video camera, which could prove that it did not happen? Basically, what it comes down to here, is your word against that of the bible (or the bible's writer, as you put it), and you just know whose side i'll take.

He did not?! Says who? You?.....here we go again., and you know the drill...

You can't have an intelligent discussion like this. Neither were you there to see the whale eat Jonah, or to see god make Adam from clay. Most conclusions are as a result of logical deductions, not eye-witness evidence!

You see that text marked in red? Why did you cut that bit out when quoting me? If we are going to have an intelligent discussion, please.... don't quote me out of context, it turns this into more of a game (my daddy is bigger than your daddy) rather than a the intelligent discusion you are seeking.

[froggy]

Quoting Rev. Terpenning, United Church of Christ
Sermon based on John 20:19-31

You are not the first agnost that makes me doubt dogma, but I always revert to this quote from a sermon by Peter Terpenning delivered on April 7, 2002 at the Community United Church of Christ, Boulder Colorado.

"To understand Thomas' reputation as "doubting Thomas" we need to consider what John was trying to teach when he wrote down the story of Thomas' doubt. John was writing a long time after Jesus died, at least 60 to 70 years. He was writing to Christians in Asia Minor, most of who never saw Jesus in the flesh, and were just like Thomas, in that they were being asked to believe without having seen the risen Christ. John is concerned to teach the lesson that "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe." He tells this story, possible to show his contemporary Christians that even the Disciples had trouble believing when they hadn't seen Jesus themselves. Anyone would. Maybe John was hoping his readers would take heart in Thomas' very human example, and not feel guilty about their doubts, but know that even Thomas doubted.

My point today is simply that it's ok to doubt. If we are honest with ourselves, our faith is a constant struggle with doubt. Faith and doubt are two sides of a coin, connected, inseparable. We have much in common with the original audience of John's gospel. We have not seen the risen Christ as the disciples did. We may have had encounters with Christ, in other people, in visions and dreams, in love and servanthood, but we also have times when God seems far away, and we are living on faith alone.

Then we need to look at Thomas' example. We need to honest about our doubts. We need to challenge God and ask for guidance. We need to not just say we believe when we really do not. Thomas was a gutsy guy who asked for what he needed and was honest about his doubts. He demanded nothing less than the truth, and didn't take the easy way out. Neither should we. Holding onto faith is not as easy thing. Living as people faithful to God in a violent, confusing world, is not easy. We need real faith, real answers to our doubts. Do not choose the easy way in faith. Do not take someone else's word for it. Go out and find your own path to follow God. Face your doubts squarely. Ask God for what you really need in your faith journey."

[youngben]

The problem with some arguments here is that they are too wordy and lack substance, and most are regurgitated views of other thinkers and theologists.

If we can have simple answers that would be great.

For example, as I once asked here in mashada, for a world that is 2000 yr old, sijawahi ona reference ya dinosaur kwa bible.

If noah took all animals into his ark and when the water subsided, how come we are not told about the 2nd part of his contract, coz surely, it seems some animals are continent specific, lazima angedrop, kangaroos and Koalas in australia only, cougars in Americas only, and tigers in asia only. we should append history by having Noah as the first Circumnavigator.

Day and Night were separated a day or 2 before the sun and the moon, (huh).

Answer questions simplistically, am not saying you dont refer to those manuals that you do, just explain it to your own understanding as if you are explaining to a 10 yr old, yeah am that shallow.

That way u will know the truth, believe me, you will only understand and gain entry into heaven if you become like a child (Jesus). To a child to kill is a sin, to the adults, philosopher and thinkers there are myriads of rationales - hes a killer, collateral damage (George Bush - Iraq) etc, so who are you?

[miStar]

Originally Posted by youngben

The problem with some arguments here is that they are too wordy and lack substance, and most are regurgitated views of other thinkers and theologists.

If we can have simple answers that would be great.

For example, as I once asked here in mashada, for a world that is 2000 yr old, sijawahi ona reference ya dinosaur kwa bible.

If noah took all animals into his ark and when the water subsided, how come we are not told about the 2nd part of his contract, coz surely, it seems some animals are continent specific, lazima angedrop, kangaroos and Koalas in australia only, cougars in Americas only, and tigers in asia only. we should append history by having Noah as the first Circumnavigator.

Day and Night were separated a day or 2 before the sun and the moon, (huh).

Answer questions simplistically, am not saying you dont refer to those manuals that you do, just explain it to your own understanding as if you are explaining to a 10 yr old, yeah am that shallow.

That way u will know the truth, believe me, you will only understand and gain entry into heaven if you become like a child (Jesus). To a child to kill is a sin, to the adults, philosopher and thinkers there are myriads of rationales - hes a killer, collateral damage (George Bush - Iraq) etc, so who are you?

God is good.

[miStar]

Originally Posted by miStar

You completely missed my point, which was this: People always talk about the creation story and sciences big bang theory as two very separate ideas which cannot co-exist. Once you start thinking about how they could both be true, things get very interesting.

Interesting. Even the pope seems to agree with me on this:Pope: Creation vs. evolution an ‘absurdity’ - Focus on the Vatican - MSNBC.com

[ATLian]

You completely missed my point, which was this: People always talk about the creation story and sciences big bang theory as two very separate ideas which cannot co-exist. Once you start thinking about how they could both be true, things get very interesting.

Ma Bad.

Well, Creation Theory (CT) and the Big Bang Theory (BBT) are definitely not one and the same thing. Kwanza, CT happened 7,000 years ago while BBT is 14 Billion years ago. Second, CT is caused by god, BBT is caused by scientific forces. Third CT happened in 7 days while BBT took billions of years for life to form. Fourth, the Bible (which details CT) makes absolutely no mention of BBT. etc etc etc. They definitely cannot co-exist.



About the definition of a second, I hope you realise that the concept of a second existed long before the scientific definition came to be. For example, before 1967 the scientific definition of a second was: the fraction 1/31,556, 925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time..

I understand there have always been definitions of what a second is. All previous definitions have always had to do with a second being a fraction of how long the earth takes to revolve around it's axis (a day). What this last one I posted does is it removes the element of a 24 hour day from the definition. Which means that if anything were to happen to make the day longer or shorter, it still wouldn't change the definition of a second. As in, c (speed of light) would always be 300,000 KM/second whatever happens if this new definition is used.



You have "no doubt"? Why, because carbon dating said says so?
Who said mt.everest is 6 million years old? The scientists and their carbon dating.

OK, first of all, as an FYI, carbon dating is used to measure ages of things that were once living, meaning Everest cannot be carbon dated. Secondly, I don't understand why Christians challenge carbon dating when it doesn't agree with what their beliefs say. I'm sure if someone came across the cross Christ was crucified on, and carbon dating proved that the cross was made in 33 AD, you'd have these Christians saying it must be the one and carbon dating has proven it to be correct.

But to answer your question - yes, I believe the age of Everest to be millions of years old because geologists and scientists have measured it to be that age in ways which even YOU can independently verify for yourself. The thing about science, unlike religion, is it's not a group of men trying to make some unquestionable laws. When scientists say Everest was formed N million years ago, they give reasons why they arrived at that conclusion. They present evidence. Then other scientists using different methods arrive at the same conclusion.

e.g. geologists say Everest was once at sea level, and was formed when tectonic plates collided. That process takes millions of years to create a mountain as high as Everest, and they calculate Everest to be say 50 million years old. Then biologists find fossils of sea-dwelling crustaceans near the peaks of the Everest. The only way they got up there is they died in the sea, then as the mountain rose, they rose with it. The biologists date the crustaceans and conclude they died 50 million years ago.

I'll believe that evidence any day to some holy book fable which so obviously contradicts the truth!

[miStar]

Well, Creation Theory (CT) and the Big Bang Theory (BBT) are definitely not one and the same thing. Kwanza, CT happened 7,000 years ago while BBT is 14 Billion years ago. Second, CT is caused by god, BBT is caused by scientific forces. Third CT happened in 7 days while BBT took billions of years for life to form. Fourth, the Bible (which details CT) makes absolutely no mention of BBT. etc etc etc. They definitely cannot co-exist.

I did not say they are the same thing, what i said is they are not incompatible, especially if you can stop reading the bible like some sort of scientific manual, and just once, entertain the idea that the creation story, is not a LITERAL account of what transpired ie 7 days is not actually = "scientific definition of a second" X 60 X 60 X 24 X 7. Or to put it another way, when the book of genesis says that God separated night and day, where exactly is it written that night was exactly "scientific definition of a second" X 60 X 60 X 12 X 7 ???

If you read the creation story, God actually created night and day on the first day, the sun and moon were created on the 4th day, so what was being used to measure day and night for the first three days (and dont tell me about the 1967 scientific definition of a second). The bible itself clearly states that time and space as measured by humans are immaterial to God. One day is described as being like one thousand years and one thousand years is described as being like one day(Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8).

Even one of the most famous scientific geniuses of our time, Albert Einstien, says the exact thing about time in his relativity theory. THIS page sums it up perfectly:

Gravitational Time Dilation
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity predicted that time does not flow at a fixed rate: moving clocks appear to tick more slowly relative to their stationary counterparts. But this effect only becomes really significant at very high velocities that app roach the speed of light.

In most circumstances in the universe, such time dilation is miniscule, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive object such as a black hole. For example, an observer far from a black hole would observe time passing extremely slowly for an astronaut falling through the hole's boundary. In fact, the distant observer would never see the hapless victim actually fall in. His or her time, as measured by the observer, would appear to stand still. The slowing of time near a very simple black hole has been simulated on supercomputers at NCSA and visualized in a computer-generated animation.

So Einstein says that time is relative, the bible says its immaterial to God, but you still want to insist that the bible creation story is speaking of exactly "scientific definition of a second" X 60 X 60 X 24 X 7 ?? Nice.

geologists say Everest was once at sea level, and was formed when tectonic plates collided. That process takes millions of years to create a mountain as high as Everest, and they calculate Everest to be say 50 million years old. Then biologists find fossils of sea-dwelling crustaceans near the peaks of the Everest. The only way they got up there is they died in the sea, then as the mountain rose, they rose with it. The biologists date the crustaceans and conclude they died 50 million years ago.

You start by "correcting" my assertion that carbon dating is used by scientists to measure the age of everest, then end up by saying that its not actually everest thats been carbon dated, but the fossils found in it. Let me guess, your now going to look up the scientific definition of "mountain", to show how the trapped fossils can't possibly be part of mt. everest. Sweet.

The thing about science, unlike religion, is it's not a group of men trying to make some unquestionable laws. When scientists say Everest was formed N million years ago, they give reasons why they arrived at that conclusion. They present evidence. Then other scientists using different methods arrive at the same conclusion.

Ever heard about string theory? Theory of everything? Those are just two examples of scientific theories which scientists cannot fully agree on. You keep forgetting, and i'll keep reminding you, that science is just another human pursuit, and like all things human, its not perfect. This may shock you, but all theories require a leap in faith, because in the end, they are all ideas, and ideas are not real. By real, I mean something that can be felt by the senses eg a chair. Science aims to explain reality, and those explanations form a set of rules (theories), some of which are more easily proven than others.

For example, a trees leaves produce oxygen (photosynthesis), easily proven by covering leaves in a plastic bag for a few days, and measuring the increase in oxygen). Another theory, the amount of carbon in this bone proves it belongs to an animal that existed 10 million years ago(carbon dating). Now thats a hard one to prove. Just a question: how do they decides that X amount of carbon measures 5 million and not say 10 000 years?

Or to put it more simply: since no one was actually there 5 million years ago, no one can claim to know exactly what was or was not there. We can come up with our clues, measurements and theories of what happened, but since they are all based on ideas (which are not real) in the end, you'll still have to believe in something/someone. Whether its a group of scientists congregating somewhere to come up with new definitions, or the hundreds of inspired writers of the bible, in the end, it takes a leap faith (in scientific theory or Gods word). Accept that.

And if you can actually SEE a dinosaur walking 5 million years ago, or SMELL early man farting in his cave 2 million years back, and HEAR everest eruption in 5 00 000 000 BC, ebu give me some of that stuff you're smoking. It must be lethal.

[miStar]

Another thought occured to me. Einstiens theory of relativity, which states that time is relative tho who or where the observer is, kind of goes against common-sense. Imagine if someone else (who the scientistific community did not recognise) had come up with it, it would have been trashed as nonesense.

And wasn't he also the one who said that IMAGINATION is more important than KNOWLEDGE ? Pause...and think about it.

And many of the things that science "discovers", have always been there anyway, like electricity (lightning). Scientific discovery is nothing more than attaching a set of rules and definitions to something thats always been around, then using that knowledge to our advantage eg using electricity for light bulbs.

Science is hardly done, and more and more things are being discovered with each passing day. Believe me, at this rate, they'll one day discover God, even though he has always been around and infact, he created everything that they are so happily discovering. Look at quantum physics, they are already talking about a fourth dimension (time), string theory which predicts a whooping 10 -26 dimensions, and wormholes which are supposedly " a feature of spacetime that is essentially a 'shortcut' through space and time"

A shortcut through space and time!! Ati, its 2007, but just walk through that kapanya route over there and WHooaa!!! Hello 2017! Many people find the though of respected scientists talking about taking shortcuts through time shocking, just as many people were also shocked ages ago when another scientist, Galileo said the world was round and rotated around the sun.

Yes, one day they'll scientifically discover God too. But most of us have already discovered a our own, simpler shortcut to that discovery.

[wanaume]

Where human knowledge ends is where Gods begins, can you imagine all how many billions are we?? put together and yet we only make to the geginning of Gods knowledge and wisdom.
And the how do you answer to some of the bizare things that you see everyday, doctors have given different names to blindness, but do they know what the solution is??? i don think so they only make assumtions of what could have happened.
And so many other things sitaki kujaza thread na vitu unajua.
Just make sure you are the right example of gods powers not the ones you are listing

[right]

Originally Posted by Songa Songa

Atheist lack faith because it is a gift from God that they have rejected. So all that is left for an atheist is a lot of endless questions without any answers.

As much as you love your two sons, how would you react to him who always critisise you and sees no good in you? well, as the parent, you will keep loving him but you will minimise his priviledges in any form to enable him have a reason to critisise you most... in that case, our mighty and everlasting father denied the atheist the gift of faith.