User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
Rick Warren-barf

I had great hope that we had restored some dignity to the White House by electing Barack Obama-but his inaguration line-up has me a little worried;He is going to have Rick Warren speak. Rick Warren is a member of the fruit loop radical right fringe and an overbearing a**hole, in my humble opinion. Couldn't Barack find a better speaker than this? I know Obama is a Christian, but there are certainly better people to choose from within the Christian community. He defended his choice by saying that it is time for everyone to "come together." I don't think Obama realizes that the radical right don't just want a place at the table, they want to OWN the table. Just curious what others think about this.

Emily, I think Obama is throwing a bone to the religious right with the Rick Warren pick. He is trying to calm down the panicked fear and loathing of the Focus on the Family/Bill O'Reilly crowd. I think it's an honest attempt on his part to show that he is going to unite people, however one could argue that he is throwing his gay (and gay-friendly) supporters under the bus in the process. The poor guy is going to have everyone hating him before too long, just because in a country as religiously balkanized and idealogically divided as ours, it is unavoidable. I voted for Obama and I wish him the best, but he has an unthankable and impossible task in front of him, trying to revive the corpse of a dead country.

Narrowing the Rick Warren issue to one small segment of society and one issue (same-sex marriage) is in my opinion a way to ignore the larger issue of Separation of Church and State. The strategy is to play down the bigger issues (deliberately ignored) and make the objection to Rick Warren mostly about gay rights. When the real issue, that the religious right calls a myth, is Separation of Church and State. That's what all the Democrats have already thrown under the bus. Separation of Church and State has not been an issue in a Presidential campaign since John F. Kennedy said, "there are real issues that will decide this campaign, and they are not religious issues."

If the gay marriage issue had not been presented as a religious issue, but a civil rights issue with only civil unions involved you would not have this laughable muddle. It would not be necessary to have "church" approved unions. Separation between Church and State means Church doesn't interfere in the affairs of Government and Government does not interfere in the affairs of the Church. These lines started to become muddled when the unconstitutional "faith based initiative" was installed. I would like to know the total amount of Church money and resources expended on a political activity the Prop. 8 campaign in California. Several denominations worked and spent money on a clearly political endeavor.

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A Wright's comments about discrimination in America were looked upon with such disdain, but the only thing wrong was he limited it to one segment of society. We all know that you can discuss discrimination in America if you blame the public not the Government. In fact discrimination has never been limited to color, and is every bit as vicious. If you don't think so look at the gays that have been murdered, the doctors that have been killed, and the malicious attitudes toward atheists. I saw a program about a new fad that is called "something" I don't remember, but the idea is to kick homeless people to death for fun. So, come on now Rev. Wright, America is a country made up of devout sadistic bigots. However, the Rev. Wright is not stupid, but Rick Warren is just plain stupid. Rick Warren quote: "If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man."

Some of us think that Rick Warren's philosophy as described On Fox News, with Sean Hannity is really sick. Sean Hannity insisted that the United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Some of us think that it would be evil to invade a foreign country and kill their leader even if they are killing in the name of God! Obama denounce the Rev. Wright over his offensive remarks. So, why not denounce Rick Warren's for his?

In 2007 Barack Obama blasted Christian conservatives in a speech at the United Church of Christ's 50th Anniversary General Synod. Obama said, "Faith got hijacked partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us. At every opportunity they've told Evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and Intelligent Design." Obama said that he was raised in a household that was not formally religious, though his mother was "one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew."

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." John F. Kennedy

The whole point of Obama's small-donor fundraising was that he wouldn't have to succumb to the demands of corporate interest and the religious right. So, why is he already seeking the approval of right wing fundamentalists.

Great post, Linda. I totally agree that separation of church and state is the real issue. But don't look for Obama to address it.

You said "The whole point of Obama's small-donor fundraising was that he wouldn't have to succumb to the demands of corporate interest and the religious right. So, why is he already seeking the approval of right wing fundamentalists?"

Actually, Obama received about the same amount from small donors in 2008 as Bush did in 2004, according to a study by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute. "The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

In his excellent Rolling Stone article from this past August, "Big Business is Making Sure It Wins the Presidency", Matt Taibbi pretty much shattered all my illusions about how the sausage was made, so to speak. He illustrates in great detail how both Obama and McCain would be beholden to big corporate interests, in the event of being elected President.

As long as we have vast numbers of people in this country who have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ", many of whom are powerful CEOs and influential pastors and evangelists, don't look for Obama to stick his hand in that hornet's nest of church/state issues. He is going to be busy just trying to make the trains run on time, and to do that, he needs everyone on his team, including the people who think that the earth is 6000 years old and that Jesus is keeping their favorite quarterback from breaking his leg during the Big Game.

Like I said, I voted for Obama and donated to his campaign, to help defeat the evil, insane McCain and Palin, but in a few short months I think you are going to see that the only "change you can believe in" may be whatever you are able to find underneath your own sofa cushions.

Oh, I was being facetious! I know about campaign funding. I wonder How Much "Change We Can Believe In Cost!" I was for Senator Gravel the (pain in the ass of the Democratic establishment) who won the endorsement of campaign finance reform activist. Mike Gravel said, "Obama avoids PAC money, but takes lobbyists' bundled money."

Mike Gravel in one of the debates (after they asked Hillary how she would be "change") Gravel said: "The Democratic Party used to stand for the ordinary working man. But the Clintons and the DLC sold out the Democratic Party to Wall Street. Look at where all the money is being raised right now, for Hillary, Obama and Edwards. It's the hedge funds, it's Wall Street bankers, it's the people who brought you what you have today. And they're lock, stock and barrel in their pocket."

Obama is only recycling the establishment

Rick Warren is one of the greatest people alive. He gives all his money away to help the world. I go to his church. He is extremely rich but he lives in the same house and drives the same truck. I have a friend of a friend in which rick warren came to his house to help him move. Rick warren will break his back for you. He is extremely selfless. I know this from word of mouth and I met him a bunch of times. So many peoples lives have changed because of him. When southern california was burning (like a year ago i think). Pastor rick warren helped 1000's of people who lost their homes. He kept all the fire fighters fed and everything.

There have been many articles written about Rick Warren. (I think he is the stereotypical loud-mouthed Televangelist huckster.) Most notable the article about Rick Warren's speech on April 17, 2005, at the Southern California Anaheim Angels sports stadium. In front of thirty thousand Saddleback Church members assembled to celebrate Saddleback's 25th anniversary and listen as Rick Warren announced his vision for the next 25 years of the church: the P.E.A.C.E. Plan.

The fool sometimes called 'pastor Rick' made known his intent. The loony leader of ignorant foaming at the mouth brainwashed followers talked about a number of visions and communications he had received from God by calling on his church members to follow Jesus with the fanatical dedication with which the Nazis (or Hitler Youth) gave to Adolf Hitler. Rick Warren appeared to be in effect asking his Saddleback members to be fanatically dedicated to Warren's own leadership, given his role in divining God's intent for the Saddleback church flock. A preacher who tells it like it is, it's brainwashing!

Towards the close of his nearly one hour speech, Pastor Warren asked his followers to be as committed to Jesus as the young Nazi men and women who spelled out in mass formation with their bodies the words "Hitler, we are yours," in 1939 at the Munich Stadium, were committed to the Führer of the Third Reich, a major instigator of a World War that claimed 55 million lives.

The delusional and dangerous motivational speaker also explained that God had personally instructed him to seek, for the good of the world, "more influence, power and fame."

Another article: "Rick Warren Allies Distribute Anti-Jewish Comic To School Kids." Following a March 2008 meeting with Janet Museveni, Rick Warren announced his plan to make Uganda the world's 2nd "Purpose Driven" nation and enthused, to an audience at Uganda's elite Makerere University, "The future of Christianity is not Europe or North America, but Africa, Asia and Latin America."

I had read that religion is on the decline in better-educated and wealthier countries and that evangelicals are now targeting third world poor uneducated people.

Uganda's Archbishop, Henry Orombi, under whose aegis the Church of Uganda intends to distribute ten million anti-Jewish comic books, followed up Warren's declaration; "Someday we will have a purpose driven continent!"

Most of the people who voted for Obama are totally against this kind of despicable dialogue. I know that most of them are very angry that Obama chose to legitimize it by asking Rick Warren to stand beside him in public. This is totally unacceptable, and is not what people who are not right-wing-religious-nuts thought they were electing.

Concluding his motivational speech, the Saddleback Church founder instructed his ranks in the stadium to hold up signs, from their official programs, with the preprinted message "whatever it takes". Warren then introduced, as leader of the first nation on Earth in which the P.E.A.C.E. Plan would be implemented, Rwandan President Paul Kagame. So many brainwashed idiots, and so little time.

Linda, I could counter your argument. Or we can get to the root of the issue at hand. You're personality! I've got you figured out I think. Notice you're attacks against Rick Warren. You'll find one small piece of dirt and then immediately discount that person over it. Then in the case of believing God, you will find any doubt and immediately trust in the doubt and let the doubt rule your life. In a situation where there is 90% good, you will focus and make the 10% bad your primary focus. If I'm wrong please correct me. You would take one passage in the Bible and off that one passage discount the rest right? One more thing about Rick Warren. How would you go about helping the poor people of a third world country? You'd have to go through their government first. But what if their government was full of morons? Would you just walk away and let the people suffer? In the case of Rick Warren, he did what he has to so those hungry people get fed, get medicine, and get the word of God. If his reputation suffers but those people get fed, then it's worth it to him. That is what kind of person Rick is. Now you can associate him with Hitler if you want but I assure you lots of people have been helped.

My personality makes me ask why would "God" create beings that are so gullible! My personality makes me want to find out what the truth is for myself, instead of letting someone tell me what is true. It is the reason I am the way I am. I find out things by reading more than just one book or one opinion. I do wait until there is a preponderance of evidence before I decide what the truth is.

You believe that god doesn't go for people who ask question and don't believe things on gullible faith alone. That's why you know so little and it's obvious.

You should ask yourself why god doesn't show himself and tell everyone that he is real. Why doesn't god go in for proof and only approves unquestioning gullible faith? Why does god depend on the gullible nature of people to terrorize and control them?

I have to agree with writer, Linda. Your vitriol has presented itself in this thread that discredits you so much in my eyes. The writer puts forth the reasons to not hate someone, which I thought were really good (and I've known about them for some time), and instead of saying: 'hey, he's a good guy - that doesn't make God something real' - you personally attack. You find one thing, indeed, and SLAM! Linda: you are such an angry person. Smart and funny, and ANGRY. Perhaps you have a right to be. But isn't that a character flaw? I don't understand secularists code of living or if that's what you call it or if there is such a thing, but your anger suggests that something is going on more than just disagreement. Contempt comes to mind. What's happened? Were you once a believe and then something/someone happened? I'm sure if you've read my previous comments, you know that I believe that I, or anyone, can convince you to become a Christian. I can try and "plant seed." But that's about it. It sounds like, more than ever, that you're soil is frozen. Please thaw!

Joseph: "Your vitriol has presented itself in this thread that discredits you so much in my eyes. Well that does it for me, too. If it doesn't have the Joseph seal of approval, I don't want to see it, either. Joseph: "Were you once a believe and then something/someone happened?" What? Don't eat anymore of those brownies, Joseph. Joseph: "I believe that I, or anyone, can convince you to become a Christian. I can try and "plant seed." But that's about it. It sounds like, more than ever, that you're soil is frozen. Please thaw!" I'll put Linda in the microwave for a few minutes and then she can accompany you to church on Sunday.

"Rick Warren is one of the greatest people alive. He gives all his money away to help the world." Mr.T, I "pity the fool" who believes that.

Thanks! I needed a good laugh after slogging through all this! =)

Emily (posted the topic) about Obama having Rick Warren speak at his inauguration. She wrote a serious piece about her disappointment. I added some information about the "buffoon" to her comments. I could have added what some of the major newspapers wrote about Rick Warren's remarks and how coolly the audience received him.

It was meant to be a serious topic that got sidetracked by the proselytizing (a favorite ignorant Americans pastime) along with freaking out when anyone gives them the facts about their real American idols the Evangelist.

rick warren is what ever he speaks to soft i like the type of preachings that impacts you. and barrack obama is terrible. he sucks. and he is not christian he is muslim

linda

i am a christian. and i read alot of other stuff and i also read the bible. i think you feel that christians are dumb. but i think your dumb because you come in here making so many marks about christians and then dont back it up with facts. ill give you a couple of facts. and please if you dont have an answer to what i am going to say please dont write anything back. a scientist said that the chances of the physical universe just happening is 1 out of so much that the number is more then the number of atoms in the universe. so then that means you would have a better chance of winning the lotto. so its impossible for the physical universe just to happen. and the reason why god doesnt just proof to everybody that he is real is because he wants us to have faith. and one more thing how do you explain the resurection of jesus christ?

Jonathan,

I'm sure Linda will respond, too.

I've already responded to you on another thread explaining that the universe has zero energy and that it underwent a state change at the time of the big bang. I've also asked you who created your god since you are certain nothing can exist forever. You have never responded to this. Please admit that it's much more likely for a god to be created from nothing. Or are you claiming the Keebler Elves did it?

The resurrection is a myth. Resurrection is a common mythological theme in agricultural societies. The Christian resurrection mythology was heavily influenced from earlier religions, like Mithraism, Attis, and worship of the Greek gods, like Persephone. Look up Mithra and Attis. You'll be surprised at how much Christianity stole from them.

Let me turn the question around, aren't you impressed by Attis' resurrection? Don't you think you should be worshiping him instead of your obvious copy?

You god doesn't give us proof because he doesn't exist. None of his believers have any proof, either.

don

i searched up attis. and i will write something i found on the inernet i have copied it and will paste it. "RESURRECTION In one version, Agdistis is overcome with remorse for her actions and requests Zeus to preserve the beautiful corpse of Attis so it never decomposes. No resurrection occurs for Attis. In another account, Agdistis and The Great Mother (or Cybele) carry the pine tree back to a cave where they both mourn the death of Attis. Again, no resurrection. The resurrection story doesn't surface until much later when Attis is transformed into a pine tree."

there was no resurrection. and attis came after jesus. so if anything they stole it from christianity. and the life of jesus was true. they have people that wrote journals about him in those times. so we all know now that he exhist, and we all know that he died. but people know where he died and they still cant find him. but if you go to muhammads tomb you will find his bones if you go to budha's tomb you will find his bones and any other religion you will find there bones except jesus. how do you explain that?

and please dont try to come up with that crap of jesus doesnt exhist cause thats aload of garbage.

god bless.

Jonathan,

In ancient times there was a shared supply of religious myths spread throughout much of the Mediterranean area, the Middle East and beyond. They suggest that ancient and modern religions have adopted material from this common source of stories about heroes, saviors and god-men.

EASTER IT'S PAGAN ORIGINS - Origins of the name "Easter":

The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 C.E.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility was known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime.

SUNDAY COMES FROM "SOL," THE ROMAN GOD OF THE SUN." Their phrase "Dies Solis" means "day of the Sun." The Christian saint Jerome commented "If it is called the day of the sun by the pagans, we willingly accept this name, for on this day the Light of the world arose, on this day the Sun of Justice shone forth."

Or how about it's all a lot of copy cat stories and they knew it.

Image of the Virgin Mary with the infant Jesus. A resemblance to earlier depictions of Isis with her Horus, who was said to be conceived by magical means.

TAMMUZ, THE EASTERN ADONIS (In the Bible Ezekiel 8:14.) Adonis is the Phoenician word for "lord" and the story of Adonis' death and resurrection reflects aspects of the Near-eastern god Tammuz. Tammuz was the spouse of the goddess Ishtar, who descended to the underworld to rescue him from death. He is essentially a fertility god, associated with the miracle of the harvest. His death and rebrith were celebrated each spring and autumn and the miracle of the spectacle of women weeping for Tammuz is mentioned in the Bible (Ezekiel 8:14). Like Adonis, he was killed by a boar and while he is in the underworld all vegetation withers. The Sumerian "Innanna's Journey to Hell" is an early version of Ishtar and Tammuz, under the names Innanna and Dumuzi, and records an early song for the lost god : " Who is your sister? I am she. Who is your mother? I am she. Day dawns the same for you and me. This is the same day we shall see."

ISHTAR FERTILITY GODDESS - Mystic Egg of Astarte - Sacred Egg of

Heliopolis, and Typhon's Egg Image of the Virgin Mary with the infant Jesus.A resemblance to earlier depictions of Isis with her Horus, who was said to be conceived by magical means.

EGYPTIAN GOD HORUS IS THE SAME GOD JESUS (Jesus the Amen (Revelations 3:14) It's in your Bible.)

Many of the miracles, and beliefs about the supernatural status of Horus, an ancient Egyptian God, were incorporated into stories about Jesus as recorded in Gospels and other books in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). Jesus was referred to as the "chief cornerstone" (capstone) - a reference to an Egyptian pyramid. The chief cornerstone of the pyramid is same symbol for Horus, the Egyptian god and savior. Like the Egyptian pharoah, Jesus was called a "shepherd" who rules the nations with a staff. Horus was a popular Egyptian god who was the son of Osiris and Isis. Osiris and Horus were both solar deities. Osiris was the setting sun, Horus the rising sun. Jesus is the rising Son and the morning star. The pharoah was considered to be an incarnation of Horus (also known as "Amen-Ra," the sun god). In the same way, Jesus is considered to be the incarnation of his heavenly Father. Horus was the "lamb of God" who took away the sins of the world. Horus had an adversary named "Set". Jesus' adversary was "Satan". The story of Horus can be found in The Egyptian Book of the Dead"" (also known as the "Papyrus of Ani") written over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ.

I want to see you dispute any of this and I don't think you will.

Jonathan,

Here are some links that prove once again Christianity is a fraud and you're happy to lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis

Note that the statue was dated BEFORE Christ.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paganrising.html

An overview of resurrection myths that influenced Christianity. Yes, it's hard to find an aspect of Christianity that is novel.

Here's an article on Mithra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus outside the Bible (that aren't well known frauds.)

There was never any body because Jesus never existed in the first place. If you think he did, please provide something other than the lack of evidence.

Oh look, there's nothing in this cardboard box! My invisible pink unicorn must have been resurrected!! It's a miracle!!

don

here is some evidence on jesus.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

the man that wrote that article on the website geocities is wrong from the begginning in the bible it does talk about ressurection. read 1 corinthians 3-8. thats the same verse he used. before you answer me on this get a bible search up 1 corinthians 3-8 and you will see it talks about the ressurection. and that same verse is the the one that guy used in geocities.com. so before you put something search it up. and make sure its true because that is a lie.

and the one that talks about attis. it never said that he ressurected.

so again please read something before you post it. again you lose this argument.

god bless

Jonathan,

Here's 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:

15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

As you can see, it talks about the resurrection. The point is that it's referring to some other scripture (accepted doctrine) that is unknown. How can it be accepted if nobody knows what it is?

I don't see anything wrong with the Pascal's Wager article.

As for Attis, the link I presented was to show you the TIME PERIOD because you made the false claim that Attis was after the myth of Jesus. Seriously, if you would read what I wrote, we wouldn't be having this dialog.

Here's a reference on Attis' resurrection myth. http://www.bartleby.com/196/81.html This is from a famous book called the Golden Baugh, which is considered an early major contribution to the study of mythology. See (in your case, ignore): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough

I think I've demonstrated now that Jesus is a ripoff copy of earlier myths. Please admit that you are worshiping a false god.

You are a true Christian, in that no amount of evidence will convince you of anything. You are willfully ignorant, which is a trademark of your religion, based on my experience. Congratulations.

don

you havent answered any of my questions to what i have said. you just proved my point. attis was before jesus. but if you look at the website i sent you then you would know that the actual myth never talks about a ressurection. he also never had any disciples and was never crucified. he has nothing to do with jesus.

in 1 corinthinans 15:3 the scriptures is another word for bible. many preachers call it that. and the bible calls the bible scriptures. never once does the bible ever call itself the bible. bible is a name that we made in the mordern day era. scriptures is another word for bible. its not that there are other scriptures its that they are calling it the bible. but i know even if i just explained this to you, you will still use this argument.

The Mythos of Attis and the Secret of the Gallae (6,000 Years Before the Myth of Jesus) Nana, the daughter of the river Sangarius, sees the fruit and finding it beautiful places it on her bosom. Cybele, transforming herself into the form of Agdistis, changes the fruit to a seed from which Nana becomes pregnant. Her father, believing her to have been licentious, locks her away without food or water, attempting to starve her to death. Cybele slips into the girls room secretly each night bringing apples to eat and water to drink. Upon the birth of the child (On December 25th) her father orders it taken to the river and left among the reeds to die. However, a shepherd finds the child and takes him home, nurturing him on the milk of a goat that has recently given birth. The Phrygian name for goat is Attagi, and so the child is called Attis.

Attis grows into a remarkably beautiful young man, and he is gentle with his adopted father's flock. Thus, his father praises him by calling him ``the gentle shepherd''. Cybele, observing that the young lad is more beautiful than any of the gods, loves Attis above all others and showers him with gifts and favors. Attis, of course, returns her love.

Midas, king of Phrygia, scandalized by Attis' relationship with Agdistis wants Attis to marry his own daughter. Attis, finding the lass comely, eventually agrees to the marriage. To prevent anyone from breaking in on the couple while they are consummating their nuptials, Midas closes the city. However, Cybele, knowing that Attis would never be safe with humans, enters the city by lifting its walls upon her head and rescues him. This explains why she is often depicted with a crown of towers(corona turrita).

Cybele informs Attis that he is only safe so long as he doesn't wed a human. She also tells him of the agony he caused her when he left with Agdistis. When the young half-god learns of Cybele's suffering, in a fit of passion he grabs a knife and under a pine tree emasculates himself. As he lay dying (Black Friday, it was called, and it equates to Good Friday in the Christian mythos.) he called out, ``Oh Great Mother, forgive me. I never sought to cause you grief and I never will again.'' Violets spring up from drops of his blood, entwining into the boughs of the pine tree, and therein entered the spirit of Attis.

Upon seeing her son was repentant, emasculated, and had committed suicide to atone for hurting her, Cybele carries the pine tree, with all its decorations, and her son's body, to her cave. For the three days Attis is dead he visits the Underworld.

Then, on the third day, Cybele brings Attis back to life. Providing Attis with her most glorious raiment she proclaims the renascent one her daughter and her lover, conferring upon Attis gifts of mystery equal to her own. In her own words Cybele declares the transformation, ``Rejoice, my son is gone and in his place a daughter has arisen. Let all of beauty, strength, power, compassion, honor, mirth, and reverence be at her service. Let all who would do her harm, pay grievous penalty, and to all who do her tribute accrue fitting reward.''

The followers of Cybele and Attis often chanted, "As our Lord was saved, so are we all saved." They called him the Savior of Humanity and the Good Shepherd. 6,000 years later much of the Christ Mythos would be lifted from this myth. However, the Myth of Attis endured for at least 6,000 years. The Jesus myth is a relative newcomer by comparison.

The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun ...Thomas Paine on of the founding fathers. First Council of Nicea - 325 AD called by the Emperor Constantine

The church took over their much honored feast days by moving the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th. That was the same date as the official Roman religion recognizing the birth of Mithras that was celebrated, as well as, that of many cultures that recognized the return of the sun at winter solstice festivals in the great consolidation of traditions that made up the Roman Saturnalia midwinter holiday.

The Council also adopted the first Sunday following the Vernal Equinox for Easter which created the moving date for Carnaval. It should also be noted that the two large goddess cults of Isis and Cybele (mother of Attis) had their main festival seasons in the early spring months of March and April, which would now be off-limits due to the official observance of Lent.

How did the Nicene Council decide the spiritual status of the "Son of God"? The council voted on it. The Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the voting. Humans voted on it in the election. Because Constantine mandated the ballot, these bishops had no choice but to do it. The voting bishops were under Constantine's authority and therefore had vested political and financial interests in following his orders After converting to Christianity, the Holy Roman Empire embarked upon its infamous record of murder, torture, persecution, inquisitions, and crusades that lasted for centuries.

HOW YOU GOT YOUR BIBLE: The events that led up to this important first version of the New Testament. The Christians on the Nicene Council voted on the divine status of Jesus of Nazareth. Council member Eusebius, in concert with Dorotheus, Agapius, Pamphilus, Origen, and other believers, published their version (and that's all the bible is) of what they thought the Christian God was all about. Hundreds of other texts were thrown out as unorthodox or uninspired. Emperor Constantine took those New Testament copies and instituted them as authoritative.

Constantine, the Council of Nicaea, and Eusebius are all responsible for the events leading up to the first version of the New Testament scriptures. Therefore, they are responsible for the Roman Empire's first official and decreed version of God and Christianity. They forced the message of Jesus on the world. They proselytized by the sword in order to convert the unwilling. They proselytized a message of Hell and torture while claiming to have the cure for the curse. The Christian priests became very wealthy as they collected money from the poor ignorant people who didn't want to go to hell.

Thomas Paine one of the founding fathers commented on the Bible. The council of Nicaea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by a vote. The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had self-interest in the vote they gave.

You can get the correct information from the study of ancient history not apologetics. If you can't do that it's your tough luck because you do have the answers.

Jonathan,

I don't know where that crap about Attis that you posted came from. I would like to have the name of the quack. You never seem to be able to supply us with the author or book title or any documentation. In that case we can assume that daffy duck wrote it. It means nothing. We are not like sheep being lead to the slaughter, we want to know where you your information. I don't let people just tell me something without any proof.

What you put up about Attis looks like apologist duplicity. Apologists are putting out prevarication to cover-up the truth of where Christianity came from. Experts and Scholars are writing about that and other things that they are doing to cover-up. Christianity is a very lucrative business, as well as, it helps governments control the masses. Apologists who can't read Egyptian hieroglyphs or understand where writers such as Gerald Massey and Ralph Ellis had found their facts are on the Internet with mumbo-jumbo. Scholars and Scientists are calling them lies and are debunking them. Apologist's lies that do not have any expertise in the field of antiquities are meaningless. Because these are from people incapable of making any determinations about ancient writing.

One of the apologist said that Isis-Meri did not exist in Egyptian hieroglyphs. When there are pictures of an Egyptologist pointing to glyphs in a temple or tomb engraving and translating Isis - Meri.

You can be assured that just about everything in the gospel stories have been plagiarized from ancient Egyptian beliefs.

I know that they have excuses for all of the faux pas in the Bible, such as, saying that Amen is just saying you agree. There is no word in any language that Amen means I agree, and scholars, archeologist or linguistics expert would tell you that is just a lie.

These Christian education idiot apologists say that Jesus must either be compared with all the manifestations of his rival simultaneously or with one at a time. It seems that having conceded the general point, they are rolling up their sleeves to argue every particular one. The difficulty over Christian vandalism of Pagan buildings and records has been noted. These apologists gleefully cite one of their sources to show what problems it poses to Christian critics. They are pleased with themselves that they were vandalized!

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves, an account of the savior story and where it comes from. Besides its age for a book still quoted, it is largely based on iconographic studies, unsurprising since the Christians destroyed Pagan archives. The apologist try to say this book is in error after the Pagan archives were destroyed. Graves identifies 16 of these crucified saviors.

If any apologist is putting out that Attis is not older than the Jesus myth, and if there is anyone who believes that, they are just flat stupid. It is much older it is very ancient. Attis and Adonis, killed by a wild boar - Osiris, torn to pieces by Typhon - Seth - Dionysus - Zagreus torn to pieces by the Titans - Heracles burnt himself to death on Mount Oeta.

The Christians leave us with not much evidence about the mystery religions, but that in itself is evidence. Why were they so keen to destroy everything about them if they thought they were so stupid and primitive - or barbarian and primeval. The mystery religions were modern religions when Christianity arose. Justin Martyr said that only mad people would have worshipped the Christian god, nailed up on a cross as a common insurgent. I hope you know who that is? His was a very well known historian of the CE.

No other god died on the cross. Well, maybe there is some very good proof that neither did the Jesus mythos, and there is a long tradition of hanging men as sacrifices on a tree

As far as resurrections - There are the "Dying and Rising Gods" Adonis, Baal and Hadad, Marduk, Osiris, Tammuz or Dumuzi, Melquart, Eshmun. If you can read it you will find all of this in - James G Frazer's 'The Golden Bough'.

Christians, to keep their Christian rituals and myths unique, were always redefining terms. The dying gods of the Near East did not die they merely disappeared! They come to this conclusion because the presence or absence of the god causes the seasonal variation. In winter or the dry season, vegetation dies so the people thought the god of vegetation must have gone away. Similarly the Children of Israel thought their god had gone away from them in times of tribulation. Perhaps the god had gone away, but the myths pictured the god as having gone away into the underworld--he had died!

Jesus from the events of the gospels it seems merely disappeared for awhile and then returned. Just like all the other gods.

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5.30.)

This is the same execution as happened to Tammuz - Egyptian God - Jesus calls himself the Amen - Egyptian God Jesus the Amen (Revelations 3:14)

"And we are witnesses of all things which he (Jesus) did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts 10.39.)

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)

Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

What's 'wrong' with this is that when this was supposed to have been said the crucifixion has not yet happened, and the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!

Jonathan said, a scientist said that the chances of the physical universe just happening is 1 out of so much that the number is more then the number of atoms in the universe. so then that means you would have a better chance of winning the lotto. so its impossible for the physical universe just to happen."

Answer: I think you felt that you had to say that I think that Christians are dumb so you could justify saying that I am dumb. That is a testimony to how conniving and treacherous your religion inspires people to be. I'm glad it is all here for everyone to read. I have never said that you were dumb and you know that. You said that you think that I am dumb. Do you see how that all works, and do you see how you turned things all around? If you believed in hell, I would think that you would believe that you would sizzle like a shish kabob.

I do not know of any astrophysicist that believes that statement you just made about the Universe. Astrophysicists study the origin of the Universe. They are the people who do those kinds of mathematical calculations. What is the name of that astrophysicist? Here are the facts, and I doubt that you will read it.

The general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which means that the idea of an ever existing, ever lasting universe is no longer tenable. The theorem which Stephen Hawking and Professor Roger Penrose developed in 1970 said that general relativity predicted that the universe and time itself begain in the big bang and that time will come to an end in black holes. The laws of science govern the beginning of the universe. It doesn't matter what was going on before the Big Bang -nothingness - or for how long - because the universe had a beginning (Big Bang). Nothingness could have existed forever, but the universe didn't need a creator.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang". Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity.

Astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. Our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. After its initial appearance, it inflated after the Big Bang, expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. If there is something besides us it's some form of life, not a supernatural being - biological life.

At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size, and was extraordinarily hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun. About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening.

There are something like ten 1,000,000 to the 14th power or (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. Where the energy came from; the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space. This negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. So, the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is really completely self-contained.

God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if god created everything who created god.

Quantum physics does not require us to abandon the distinctions between information, reality, and irrationality. If we did that then nothing would make sense, but it doesn't. We are nearing the end of that time when dishonest people can claim that we don't know what happened at the beginning - it's going to become increasingly more difficult for games to be played any longer. The LHC experiments will assist in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and the universe. The time is very near that those who create their own reality that they are more satisfied with will no longer be able to fool anyone. Science discovers what is really there. Science can study reality, and answer questions, and that's what will determine our future.

Jonathan said, "and the reason why god doesnt just proof to everybody that he is real is because he wants us to have faith. and one more thing how do you explain the resurection of jesus christ?"

Answer: Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Gaius Julius Caesar lived 100 years before the Jesus was born. Caesar was murdered at the height of his power; Caesar was elevated to a God after his death. It was very common to deify rulers at that time.

There are no actual Roman records (from the actual time period) of a Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Historians know that there are no writings by anyone that were written at the time of the events that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from unknown authors, people who never knew Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Many writings about Jesus are forgery or the retelling of myths. The information and dates of these (so-called) historical writings show they could not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because they all came from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means the information did not come from a person living at the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Historians and Scholars know that it was all written long after Jesus supposed death. It came from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. None of the authors' scant writings about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses; therefore all we have remains as hearsay, and even the New Testament writings came from Paul's vision well after the alleged death of Jesus and unknown authors.

Eusebius served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop, and he had great influence in the early Church. Eusebius openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). Many scholars think that Eusebius not Josephus was responsible for those writings. Eusebius wrote about (how it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived).

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides. Considering what we know about the early Church's intolerant and biased position no Scholar considers these so-called historical writings reliable evidence.

Not a single source ever quoted is from the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years. In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for 'Mark' and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels. 'Luke' and 'Matthew' were recording hearsay testimony a century after the supposed birth of Jesus. None of attributed words of Jesus were actually spoken by him, and the claims made today for "oral transmission" are false. The truth is that eyewitnesses did not write the gospels, it was the work of those skilled in fabrication who wrote the gospel accounts.

Historians give more credence to Caesar's commentaries than to the gospels, no matter how prolifically they were copied. The gospels provide detailed stories of Jesus for the last year or so of his life but are totally silent about the other 30-odd years; about 90% of the Jesus biography is missing.

The late ABC News anchor Peter Jennings was in Israel broadcasting a television special on Jesus Christ. His program, "The Search for Jesus," explored the question of whether the Jesus of the New Testament was historically accurate. Jennings featured opinions on the Gospel accounts from DePaul professor John Dominic Crossan, three of Crossan's colleagues from the Jesus Seminar, and two other Bible scholars. On national TV Dr. Crossan not only cast doubt on more than 80 percent of Jesus' sayings but also denied the claims of a divine Jesus, his miracles, and his resurrection. Jennings's report did focus on one issue that ought to be given some serious thought. Crossan implied that the original accounts of Jesus were (embellished by oral tradition) and were not written down until after the apostles were dead. Thus they are largely unreliable and fail to give us an accurate picture of the real Jesus. How are we to know if this is really true? It is a shame that many scholars are so intimidated that they can not collaborate in unbiased research that is oriented toward, scholarly research on the many theories about the authenticity of the Bible. No other subject would be treated as fact without one shred of proof.

Many things in the Bible have been proven to have no historic, archaeological, or scientific proof to back it up. (Too numerous to include.)

Don't say I didn't give you any facts again, because I did do that here and on the other thread. Intelligent Design is not science. No, it is not. I gave you the reports, scientists, experts and investigations. If you can't dispute something with facts just say so. Because saying that someone didn't give any facts when they did is a lie. You didn't give any evidence. Don gave you facts and you gave none. You have never disputed Don Baker's replies with any scientific fact, and you have never disputed mine with facts. If you can't dispute facts with facts you are wasting everyone's time. I will not answer any more vicious attacks on someone because none of you can debate with facts. If you can't debate get off the message board.

linda

i did you read your post and i also read don's post and yours and his are very contradicting. he said that scientist dont know yet if the universe just happened at it might have happened like that. but they have no proof. and your telling me that scientist do have proof that the universe just happened so either you are lieing or both of you are lieing. so please before you write something make sure you dont just make it up and actually get it from a website. because i know you atheist tend to do that alot.

god bless.

Jonathan,

You didn't give me the name of that astrophysicist? You were saying that a scientist was making statements about the universe that I know are false. You seem to have overlooked the fact that my post proved that. I never get any of the inaccurate trash off the Internet especially science. I have read all of the books written by Stephen Hawking the world-renowned astrophysicist. I also have all of the latest scientific journals.

I was disputing your comments about theories, and the fact that astrophysicists do not have a theory like the one you put out. Most of the theory I put up has been proven and there are still things to be found and that is what Don means by his statement that it has not all been proven yet.

I told you that the LHC experiments will assist in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and the universe. The time is very near that those who create their own reality that they are more satisfied with will no longer be able to fool anyone. Science discovers what is really there. Science can study reality, and answer questions, and that's what will determine our future. They will be able to prove all the remaining missing parts of Hawking's theory with these test. Much of it has already been proven. Go back and read it again. Frankly, you can't interpret what was said, because you didn't. And you didn't argue any scientific information. You just called us liars, and don't try that again with me. Even if Don didn't agree with me, and had another theory it wouldn't make him a liar. But he doesn't it is really your inability to interpret what you read. I also noticed that you didn't answer any of my comments on your fake religion.

linda

linda my statement is not false. the man's name is vickryme scingie. i probably spelled it wrong but here is the website that i found it on. please watch the whole video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI&feature=related

and one more thing the truth is that i have no respect for you and i feel you have no life and your messages are bunch of garbage and long and dull thats why i usually dont even bother reading it. your just a liar and very judgemental.

god bless.

You said you read what Linda wrote, and now you say you never read what she writes. You have only proven what a liar you are. The load of apologist's trash you put up to "watch" because you can barely read is what nobody should waste any time on. Not even worth refuting. It belongs under YouTube trash and funny stupid videos.

Scientists take two approaches to determining the validity of theories. One approach involves efforts to prove the theory is valid which sometimes is difficult to do. The other approach attempts to disprove the theory, or falsify it. If the theory can be falsified, then there is no need to attempt to prove it. If it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal it's not an argument. What you are posting is religion, in the guise of science, and every credible scientist has said that it should be kept out of the public schools. Intelligent Design or Creationism is a total fraud. There is "no model" and that is why it can't qualify as science. It is pseudoscience as every scientific review has stated. You know nothing about any real science.

Nobody is here to educate a moron or save them from their own ignorance when they like it. You are not worth their time. You revile and reject any real education. You have nothing to counter so you go on personal attacks, yet again, because you have had nothing but apologist crap clobbered into your 'hub' of skull? You are an unthinking and ignorant twat. Everything that you have posted in your first grader misspelled and grammatically incorrect writings proves that.

They made valid points in these discussions, and backed it up with credible references, such as, the titles of books and well-known scientists and their research. Linda doesn't need to look on the Internet because most of the time she already knows the answer. Linda is a wickedly fast reader and writer, and it doesn't take long to dispute uneducated idiots that are not posting valid information, and it's not her writing that there is something wrong with, it's that you are too thick to comprehend any of it. I bet you don't have a problem listening to overweight doughnut eating crazy fanatic hags.

You're unintelligible vicious responses are characteristics of people who are too ignorant to actually understand or respond in a discussion with valid information. That's why you always revert to personal attacks when you lose. And this is yet another debate that you lost. What are they talking about? Is all you need to post ever.

They are wasting their time on you. Everyone else does have decent discussions with them. It's you and your mendacious entourage that can't do that.

It's just typical nosey trash that only knows how to gossip, because they know nothing about the world. We all know what you have learned; it's how to be a nosey fanatic. When none of you can read or write. It's a waste of their time to be posting things to someone that can't write or spell any better than a first grader. I'm sure you didn't read anything Linda wrote; you can't!

Do you know what "credible published materials" means? Do you know the names of any Particle physicist, such as, Nicola Cabibbo, or any big names of string theory - Edward Witten and Brian Greene? Have you ever heard of the German particle physicist Rolf-Dieter Heuer? Had you ever heard of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research? No.

Do you know the names of published Astronomers and Astrophysicists? Here is a list and what they have done.

Riccardo Giacconi - Italian pioneer of x-ray astronomy; participated in discovery of the first known x-ray source outside the solar system (Scorpius X-1).

Roger Penrose - British contributed to the development of general relativity by showing the necessity for cosmological singularities; elucidated the physics of black holes.

John N. Bahcall -American made important theoretical contributions to understanding solar neutrinos and quasars.

James W. Christy - American discovered Pluto's satellite Charon.

William K. Hartmann - American well-known painter of astronomical themes; co-developed the most widely accepted theory of the formation of the Moon (from the collision of a giant planetismal with the Earth at the close of the planet-forming period of the solar system).

Kip S. Thorne - American contributed to the theoretical understanding of black holes and gravitational radiation; co-founded the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Project (LIGO).

Stephen W. Hawking - British combined general relativity with quantum theory to predict that black holes should emit radiation and evaporate

Jocelyn Bell - Irish co-discovered the first pulsar.

Charles Thomas Bolton - American-born Canadian identified Cygnus X-1 as the first black hole.

Alan H. Guth - American developed the theory of cosmic evolution known as the inflationary universe.

Paul F. Godsmith -American director of National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center; developed techniques to study structure of dense molecular clouds where star formation is occurring.

Benard F. Burke - American developed techniques for very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) using atomic frequency standards to synchronize radio telescopes at remote locations worldwide, leading to a 1000-fold improvement in angular resolution for radio telescopes; conducted first measurements of intercontinental and transcontinental VLBI.

Irwin I. Shapiro - implemented novel radio or radar techniques for various astrophysical research activities including solar-system tests of general relativity and studies of gravitational lenses and supernovae seeking to determine an accurate value for the Hubble constant.

Mike Brown - American discovered with his team many trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) including Eris, the first TNO discovered that is larger than Pluto, which eventually led to the demotion of Pluto to a dwarf planet.

A credible scientific discovery or theory has to be tested. That means it will be falsified by peer review before it ever becomes a theory. No matter how many apologists' videos or statements you put up it proves nothing. You have to give the information that has been reviewed by the scientific community and published by them. You choose to be ignorant because you plain old like it. All you have proven is that your schooling and religion have produced is an extremely ignorant vicious person. Keep posting your trash all over the messages board if you like, but I don't think anyone should answer it.

Your fake God can't bless anything faithhead.

dylan

key word usually. i usually dont read it. so that shows how your really reading my posts.

Vikram Singh is supposed to be a professor in Applied Mathematics Department of Cardiff in Whales. Even if Vikram Singh were a mathematics professor he wouldn't be a Biologist an Astrophysicist or Particle Physicists, and in that case he wouldn't really be the best person to listen to on the theories on evolution, space or atoms. I couldn't find where there were any published papers of his. He is an advocate of intelligent design. Intelligent design theory has produced no publications in scientific literature. In fact, there have been no scientific publications on intelligent design by any of its proponents. There is no theory that atoms are smart buggers that can think (except from lunatics) who also talk to the ceiling.

The same Cardiff University in Wales where Vikram Singh is supposed to be a professor announced that an international team of scientists has recovered microorganisms in the upper reaches of the atmosphere that could have originated from outer space, a participant in the study said Friday. The living bacteria plucked from an altitude of 10 miles (16 km) or higher by a scientific balloon, could have been deposited in terrestrial airspace by a passing comet, according to the researchers. The microorganisms are unlike any known on Earth, but the astrobiologists "want to keep the details under wraps until they are absolutely convinced that these are extraterrestrial," said study participant Chandra Wickramasinghe, a noted scientist at Cardiff University in Wales."

If the brilliant scientist Vikram Singh is interested in the answers to questions about the atom I suggest he read some real science. LHC - Scientists to answer key unresolved questions in particle physics. Yes, scientist involved in particle physics study atoms. This is what the LHC is aiming to find out.

HADRON - The name for one of the types of particle that make up an atom. These tiny bits of energy will be propelled by giant magnets around the tunnel circuit at almost the speed of light. COLLIDE - Is what they will do when they meet other hadrons being beamed in the opposite direction, at the same great speed. The resulting explosion will create 100,000 times more heat than the sun, apparently. Thankfully, it will only happen for a moment, in an area a billion times smaller than a speck of dust. CERN - PRONOUNCED "SERN". The French acronym for the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, which built the collider. THE BIG BANG - Is what they are trying to recreate. Or rather what happened a trillionth of a second after the universe was created by an explosion, 13.7 billion years ago. For that tiny moment, it is believed everything was molten plasma. This cooled to create everything we see around us. The hope is that by remaking the moment, in miniature, the scientists will be able to see things that are invisible now. THE HIGGS BOSON PARTICLE - A very small thing; and the first great discovery they hope to make. It is believed we have only detected a quarter of the particles in everything. We don't, for example, know why things have mass. In 1964 Professor Peter Higgs of Edinburgh University predicted an unseen particle that provided mass (its official name is a Higgs boson). The hope is it will be detected for the first time. Other possible revelations include so-called dark matter, which in theory "stretches through space like an invisible skeleton". THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING - THE HOLY GRAIL OF SCIENCE. A unifying theory providing one explanation for the forces at work in the natural world, from the nucleus of an atom to the movements of the planets. Some very respectable minds believe it is possible, and that the collider may show the way.

DNA IS NOT A LANGUAGE

An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code, which maps codons to proteins, could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not language.

THIS IS THE ANSWER ABOUT HOW THE ENZYMES EVOLVED: There is no theory that I'm aware of which states a human enzyme was created by chance. It is an evolutionary process. Reporting in the December 12 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and available online this week, the groups demonstrate that ultraviolet light striking the surface of glacial ice can lead to the accumulation of frozen oxidants and the eventual release of molecular oxygen into the oceans and atmosphere. This trickle of poison could then drive the evolution of oxygen-protecting enzymes in a variety of microbes, including the cyanobacteria. According to Yuk Yung, a professor of planetary science, and Joe Kirschvink, the Van Wingen Professor of Geobiology, the UV-peroxide solution is "rather simple and elegant." Before there was any oxygen in Earth's atmosphere or any UV screen, the glacial ice would have flowed downhill to the ocean, melted, and released trace amounts of peroxide directly into the sea water, where another type of chemical reaction converted the peroxide back into water and oxygen. This happened far away from the UV light that would kill organisms, but the oxygen was at such low levels that the cyanobacteria would have avoided oxygen poisoning. The ocean was a beautiful place for oxygen-protecting enzymes to evolve, Kirschvink says. And once those protective enzymes were in place, it paved the way for both oxygenic photosynthesis to evolve, and for aerobic respiration so that cells could actually breathe oxygen like we do. The evidence for the theory comes from the calculations of lead author Danie Liang, a recent graduate in planetary science at Caltech who is now at the Research Center for Environmental Changes at the Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan. According to Liang, a serious freeze-over known as the Makganyene Snowball Earth occurred 2.3 billion years ago, at roughly the time cyanobacteria evolved their oxygen-producing capabilities. During the Snowball Earth episode, enough peroxide could have been stored to produce nearly as much oxygen as is in the atmosphere now.

As an additional piece of evidence, this estimated oxygen level is also sufficient to explain the deposition of the Kalahari manganese field in South Africa, which has 80 percent of the economic reserves of manganese in the entire world. This deposit lies immediately on top of the last geological trace of the Makganyene Snowball.

We used to think it was a cyanobacterial bloom after this glaciation that dumped the manganese out of the seawater," says Liang. "But it may have simply been the oxygen from peroxide decomposition after the Snowball that did it.In addition to Kirschvink, Yung, and Liang, the other authors are Hyman Hartman of the Center for Biomedical Engineering at MIT, and Robert Kopp, a graduate student in geobiology at Caltech. Hartman, along with Chris McKay of the NASA Ames Research Center, were early advocates for the role that hydrogen peroxide played in the origin and evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, but they could not identify a good inorganic source for it in Earth's precambrian environment.

Also, scientists in Zurich have found biochemical clues to the evolution of the molecules, and are the first to recreate possibly ancient molecules in the laboratory and to compare the results with fossil evidence.

A recent mathematical analysis says that life as we know it is written into the laws of reality. DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids - the first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life, and now it seems that those ten are thermodynamically destined to occur wherever they can.

Scientists believe the organic material needed to create life may not have been produced on Earth, but was instead brought here by comets. The newly formed Earth was likely subjected to a fierce bombardment of comets four billion years ago. These comets may have brought with them the organic compounds that later evolved into living matter.

I think Dylan's assessment of your remarks were extremely accurate. You have been answering that I was wrong and then you say you usually don't read them. How do you know it's wrong? I agree that you can't read well enough to understand them and you think it takes a long time to write one page. Personal attacks are all that people like you have left, because you lost another argument that you started.

Jonathan,

I watched your video. Seriously, is that the best evidence you have for Christianity?

His first argument, that small things need an explanation, is an example of circular logic. He assumes that something needs to be explained (to someone), then goes on to "prove" that small things (atoms, presumably) need a mind to give it meaning, therefore that mind must be (a) god. The first statement is false. Nothing needs to be explained or have a purpose.

His second argument is from the information in DNA and other organic molecules. We know that the process of evolution can create information. Again, there does not need to be a mind to interpret the information. The information contained in DNA is "interpreted" in the development of the organism. Again, his reasoning is flawed.

He mentions a Vikram Singh from the Applied Mathematics Department of Cardiff in Whales. There is no Applied Mathematics Department there. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/ There is a mathematics department, but nobody with any similar name. Apparently, you and Ravi live in the same fantasy world. Let's pretend he existed. What you would have is an argument from authority, which can be a logical fallacy. Next, Ravi is talking about the improbability of a certain molecule self-assembling. Nobody is saying that these molecules self-assemble. They are a result of biological processes. This is called a "straw man" argument--claiming that your "opponent" is saying something ridiculous, then showing that's it's ridiculous. Again, it's a form of lying.

Finally, Ravi is making a vague argument from human morality. All social species have a code of conduct. This is a result of our evolution. I think I've pointed out in a dozen examples of how belief in god leads to a variety of social ills.

It looks like my original assessment of Ravi was right on the money. He has nothing new (or truthful) to say, but he is good at self-promotion and selling books.

YAWN. Christianity is still tired old crap.

By the way, when I call someone a liar, I have specific things in mind. I've called you a liar for specific reasons. My long experience with Christianity leads me to believe it's based on lies. Even the founder of Protestantism thought that lies were great:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." --Martin Luther

Now, when you accuse Linda of a lie, you need to provide some evidence that she did. The only evidence you gave was that you were too lazy to read what she wrote.

By the way, are you home schooled? It seems that your parents have placed far more emphasis in your religious mis-education than your education in humanities and science. I'm wondering what you plan to do for a living when you grow up. Being a true believer won't get you honest work. It will help you be useful to con artists.

dont think its an astro physicist but a mathematician named vkram singh in a leading university. statement is something like 10^40000 would be the probability of an enzme or something like that cant remeber.

chris said, dont think its an astro physicist but a mathematician named vkram singh in a leading university. statement is something like 10^40000 would be the probability of an enzme or something like that cant remeber.

Yes, the statement is actually "the chance of the human enzyme being created by chance is ten to the power of forty thousand that's more atoms than there are in the universe". This mathematical "probability" is based on a statement "by chance" that is not applicable to the theory of evolution because no one claims that enzymes formed by "random chance." Natural selection is not chance it is the opposite of chance, and is what makes evolution work. And the professor is not an evolutionary biologist or an evolutionary astrophysicist like Carl Sagan who studied the mechanization of the universe and evolution of human life. A mathematician making statements using applied mathematics about the probability of something happening does not prove a thing. It doesn't explain anything either. It has nothing to do with the way an evolutionary biologist or an evolutionary astrophysicist determines what actually did happen. This drivel doesn't prove a thing or answer any questions about evolution. Starting on the basis of a mathematical probability about what didn't happen is not how science works. Real scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads and that is exactly what Darwin did.

jonathan said, "a scientist said that the chances of the physical universe just happening is 1 out of so much that the number is more then the number of atoms in the universe. so then that means you would have a better chance of winning the lotto." so its impossible for the physical universe just to happen.

A mathematical statement based on what? This "probability" statement has nothing to do with answering questions about the origin of the universe. Answers that are based on speculation usually become inconclusive. The question was based on speculation not known facts. Scientists base theories on conclusions they reach by the outcome of experiments and those results. Theories are put through rigorous testing and scientists throughout the world falsify them before they are acknowledged as a theory. Without this kind of research in all fields of science there wouldn't be any theories. In other words nobody would use a "mathematical probability" to determine what did or didn't happen because that would be the end of research or knowing how anything happened period. Intelligent Design or Creation pseudo-science doesn't answer questions - they only need to say a Creator (that they have never proven exists) created everything - end of story - there are no theories to falsify. If science were that stupid we would never have mapped the human genome or gone to the moon. So, why does the Professor doubt evolution since he doesn't seem to be able to come up with any better explanation?

The mathematical probability that (something could have happened) or (it is unlikely to have happened) has no relationship to what in fact happened. It does not explain anything or solve any problem. A recent mathematical analysis says that life as we know it is written into the laws of reality. DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids - the first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life, and now it seems that those ten are thermodynamically destined to occur wherever they can.

Evolution is a theory and a fact - it can be observed. There is an abundance of evidence in the fossil records (transitional fossils) of plants, animals and in the geological records that confirm the earth and life on earth evolved over billions of years. There is no reason to apply mathematics to determine the probability of something that is a fact. We have rain when there is a very low probability for rain. Improbable events happen. Probability does not prove how it happened especially when the conditions are subject to change.

THIS IS THE ANSWER I POSTED ABOUT HOW ENZYMES EVOLVED: There is no theory that I'm aware of which states a human enzyme was created by chance. It is an evolutionary process. Reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and available online, groups demonstrated that ultraviolet light striking the surface of glacial ice can lead to the accumulation of frozen oxidants and the eventual release of molecular oxygen into the oceans and atmosphere. This trickle of poison could then drive the evolution of oxygen-protecting enzymes in a variety of microbes, including the cyanobacteria. According to Yuk Yung, a professor of planetary science, and Joe Kirschvink, the Van Wingen Professor of Geobiology, the UV-peroxide solution is "rather simple and elegant." Before there was any oxygen in Earth's atmosphere or any UV screen, the glacial ice would have flowed downhill to the ocean, melted, and released trace amounts of peroxide directly into the sea water, where another type of chemical reaction converted the peroxide back into water and oxygen. This happened far away from the UV light that would kill organisms, but the oxygen was at such low levels that the cyanobacteria would have avoided oxygen poisoning. The ocean was a beautiful place for oxygen-protecting enzymes to evolve, Kirschvink says. And once those protective enzymes were in place, it paved the way for both oxygenic photosynthesis to evolve, and for aerobic respiration so that cells could actually breathe oxygen like we do. The evidence for the theory comes from the calculations of lead author Danie Liang, a recent graduate in planetary science at Caltech who is now at the Research Center for Environmental Changes at the Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan. According to Liang, a serious freeze-over known as the Makganyene Snowball Earth occurred 2.3 billion years ago, at roughly the time cyanobacteria evolved their oxygen-producing capabilities. During the Snowball Earth episode, enough peroxide could have been stored to produce nearly as much oxygen as is in the atmosphere now.

As an additional piece of evidence, this estimated oxygen level is also sufficient to explain the deposition of the Kalahari manganese field in South Africa, which has 80 percent of the economic reserves of manganese in the entire world. This deposit lies immediately on top of the last geological trace of the Makganyene Snowball. We used to think it was a cyanobacterial bloom after this glaciation that dumped the manganese out of the seawater," says Liang. "But it may have simply been the oxygen from peroxide decomposition after the Snowball that did it. In addition to Kirschvink, Yung, and Liang, the other authors are Hyman Hartman of the Center for Biomedical Engineering at MIT, and Robert Kopp, a graduate student in geobiology at Caltech. Hartman, along with Chris McKay of the NASA Ames Research Center, were early advocates for the role that hydrogen peroxide played in the origin and evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, but they could not identify a good inorganic source for it in Earth's Precambrian environment.

Also, scientists in Zurich have found biochemical clues to the evolution of the molecules, and are the first to recreate possibly ancient molecules in the laboratory and to compare the results with fossil evidence.

Maybe this is where the problem is. There was nothing before the Big Bang that is the theorem. So, what we want to know is what happened at the Big Bang. Nothing was happening before the Big Bang. That is when everything began. The theorem which Stephen Hawking and Professor Roger Penrose developed in 1970 said that general relativity predicted that the universe and time itself began in the big bang and that time will come to an end in black holes.

The Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang". Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity.

You don't know who Stephen Hawking is? He is the most famous astrophysicist in the world.

The LHC is one of the most important experiments ever built. Eventually, two proton beams will be steered in opposite directions around the LHC at close to the speed of light, completing about 11,000 laps each second. At allotted points around the tunnel, the beams will cross paths, smashing together near four massive "detectors" that monitor the collisions for interesting events. Scientists are hoping that new sub-atomic particles will emerge, revealing fundamental insights into the nature of the cosmos. We will be able to see deeper into matter than ever before. We will be looking at what the Universe was made of billionths of a second after the Big Bang. That is amazing, that really is fantastic. The LHC should answer one very simple question: What is mass?

The favored model involves a particle called the Higgs boson - dubbed the "God Particle". According to the theory, particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field carried by the Higgs. The latest astronomical observations suggest ordinary matter - such as the galaxies, gas, stars and planets - makes up just 4% of the Universe. The rest is dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%). Physicists think the LHC could provide clues about the nature of this mysterious "stuff".

There was nothing before the Big Bang. We are finding out what happened at the Big Bang, and they are doing that right now. That is one of the major goals of the LHC experiments.

dylan

think about what your saying. your saying we just happened out of know where. instead of using science why dont you use logic. i mean how do you even know those statements that all these scientist have said are true. where you there? maybe they make money off lies like this? you never know. so anyways instead of using scientist and using all this krap think of logic. when you are 1st born your logic begins by thinking there was a god. why do people get out of that logic because scientist want to try to make a living of this so again use logic and not science.

god bless.

quote: "when you are 1st born your logic begins by thinking there was a god."

No it does not. When you are first born your "logic begins" by thinking "wow was I born a girl or is it cold out here? and do I ever have to pee!".

But seriously, babies are not born with god belief. They're born with the barest of instincts such as suckling, and not breathing underwater, etc. That's it. God belief has to be taught.

Oh, and I think you have misunderstood what science and logic mean. To put it simply, *scientific investigation is logic in action*, not some monolithic force unto itself or an organization.

Your remarks are example of the anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists who promote ignorance and superstition. Science and religion have nothing in common. If Scientists make claims they have to prove them. Religious fanatics never prove their claims, and many have been proven false by science. There has to be scientific illiterates in order for them to continue, and they use religious conviction to defend their lack of education.

Copernicus observed that the universe didn't really revolve around the earth but earth and the planets revolved about the sun, and the Church for threw Galileo in prison for verifying this. The discovery of the solar system that started with Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho and Kepler proves that scientists knew that the sun did not revolve around the earth, but religious dogma prevented them from making that known to the world for a very long time. The uneducated religious fanatics of today are still interfering with scientists as they always have. Scientists don't have to wait for thousands of years to make changes if they learn something that changes what they previously thought was true, but in the case of religion, they never make any changes. Scientists are encouraged to question and challenge the claims and results which authority figures offer. Scientists often prove that earlier theories are wrong or incomplete. Every scientist has a vested interest in questioning accepted theories. There is no supreme authority.

Scientists have put a man on the moon and unlocked the secrets of the human genome. Religion has collected huge amounts of money for doing nothing for humanity for thousands of years.

Anyone who believes that religious dogma is logical is very ignorant. Scientific knowledge is consistent; religious dogma is not, and much of it is irrational and self-contradictory. The cleansing in Leviticus 14 describes sprinkling the blood of a dead bird around for cleansing. Sprinkling blood around is not a scientific method of cleansing, and in fact we know that blood is really nasty. Pseudosciences, paranormal and supernatural belief systems do not require logic or critical thinking. Beliefs do not need to present any theories; they are based on movements, incredulity and in many cases absolute nonsense.

There are no absolute answers in science since there is always new information to be explained. The reason science is the exact opposite of faith or religion is that religious beliefs are based on authority, revelation and unsubstantiated faith, while science is founded on observation, verification and falsification. The scientists work is never finished; that is a large difference in religion and science. The authors of the bible thought evolution was a completed event, which it was not scientists knew better and that lead to the discovery of DNA. And DNA confirmed evolution.

Scientists are looking for answers and they depend on everyone's honesty to function. In science this is important, but religion actually has always depended on dishonesty of the clergy to survive. Many scientists work independently but their work will be combined with the work of other scientists. If anyone's work were dishonest or flawed scientists around the world would discover it. There are systems in place to catch and eliminate them. If they find a problem it is addressed immediately. When someone falsifies any aspect of a theory changes are made immediately.

If the scientists had not proven certain theories about space, before man went into space, it would have been a disaster. Scientists have to find the real answers to questions, and religion does not.

dylan

ok lets put it his way as a lil kid did you ever believe in god?

The Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang".

Being picky here, but science doesn't ALLOW "incontrovertible evidence." Science is inherently inductive. Facts, by defintion, underdetermine theories, which is another way of stating the fallacy of affirming the consequent. There will ALWAYS be more than one theory to explain any given number of observations.

Consider this: The well-thought-out theories of 1900 have been discarded just as those theories had discarded the well-thought-out theories of 1800...do you really think that in 2100 we will be viewed as astonishingly prescient?

Scientific theories lead to the discoveries of better theories or new theories. In science, a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The Earth orbiting the Sun is an observed fact. An observed fact is not a theory; it is an item of evidence supporting theories such as the heliocentric theory, gravity or the theory of evolution. Science changes with additional data. That is its strength. Scientists keep gathering more and more data and checking existing theories against that data. When data supports a theory they get more confident in that theory and when data contradicts a theory they formulate new ones.

Real science, for example, using all the data available today, the most accurate description of the solar system says that the earth and the sun orbit each other. There is a barycenter between each of the planets and the sun. Jupiter's is external to the body of the sun. Earth's is inside the body of the sun. I think it is reasonable to say that Copernicus was unaware of this. That doesn't mean he was wrong, he was more right than Aristotle was and less right than we are today. Science is full of these sorts of refinements. Your statement was not at all accurate. Science reaches a point where one theory best explains all available data. Science is constrained by available data, available theories and available tests, but scientists eventually reached the point where they could show that our solar system is an infinitesimal mote in the outer regions of a galaxy, which is just one of millions in a vast universe.

In science a theory is much more than a hypothesis or an assumptions. In science, there are some theories that are supported by so much evidence that they are widely considered to be facts.

For instance gravity, anything that has mass has gravity. Einstein's correct view of gravity replaced Newton's view of gravity. So technically, all of Newton's Laws and formulae are not correct. Technically, to be super-accurate, they have to be modified for the relavistic effects. The relavistic effects are so miniscule at velocities at less than 10% of lightspeed, and very small masses like the Earth and Sun (compared to Black holes, neutron stars, etc) that for all practical purposes, we can still successfully and accurately use Newton's laws and equations for most normal forces and velocities.

I'm not so sure how much of an attack you can mount on modern evolutionary biology. You might do better if you mount an attack on Intelligent Design by pointing out that there is no theory that has ever been tested.

The bible says that in the beginning god created man and woman and went on from there. But we know that humans were not the first life forms on planet Earth. There were dinosaurs and other various creatures long before humans. This has been proven through fossil records. Creationists deny this, and some have rigged fantastic frauds to try and prove otherwise, but they have always failed. Humans weren't present on Earth until a billion years after it's creation not a week.

Nothing to this day has disproved evolution, including, DNA. Evolution is now considered a theory and a fact. Biogeography - Homologies - Vestiges - Atavisms - Ring Species - Haldane's Rule - Endogenous retroviral insertions - all support evolution. There has been a considerable amount of work in the field of evolutionary biology in the last 150 years. Evolution is one of the foundational theories of modern science.

The latest observations by cosmologists of the cosmic microwave background, the faint glow left over from the Big Bang, are revealing for the first time that microwave-background photons from adjacent patches of the sky vibrate in slightly different directions. The discovery confirms that by studying that background we really are observing the universe as it was about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The finding verifies that just about everything astronomers thought they understood about the early universe and the emergence of galaxies is likely to be true.

Physicists announced that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion- trillionth of a second. The discovery is the first direct evidence to support the two- decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

BACKGROUND VARIATIONS ARE CLUE: It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup. It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place.

You know absolutely nothing about science or how it works. Dream on of the day when Intelligent Design will somehow prove the Big Bang and Evolution are wrong, but the fact is that these theories are leading the scientists to much bigger discoveries. That's what always happens with real science, but it never happens with pseudoscience.

It's easy to see how these uneducated vicious proteges, who have been trying to foist their ignorance off on people, got to be that dumb. I really think that you need to understand that we have no respect for your beliefs, and we don't have too.

Joseph or Ummmm,

This is part of an ignorant diatribe on an Intelligent Design web page. Along with telling the xians how to indoctrinate atheist, agnostics and some actually educated theists they also say this. They hide behind the defense that unless God appears to them personally, they will never believe. They will have faith in the speculations of man but will not have faith in God. They will use INDUCTIVE REASONING to believe that God does not exist but will not use INDUCTIVE REASONING to come to faith in God. For many, it is not that they cannot see the evidence, it is that they don't want to for then they must be accountable to our Creator God.

This of course is a lie because scientists use DEDUCTIVE reasoning. Scientists take a general scientific law and apply it to a certain case, as they assume that the law is true use Deduction. Deduction can also be used to test an induction by applying it elsewhere, although in this case the initial theory is assumed to be true only temporarily.

In set theory, an inductively created rule is a superset of the members that are taken as the start point. The only way to prove the rule is to identify all members of the set. This is often impractical. It may, however, be possible to calculate the probability that the rule is true.

Inductive arguments are always open to question, as by definition, the conclusion is a bigger bag than the evidence on which it is based.

In this way, inductive arguments can be made to be more valid and probable by adding evidence, although if this evidence is selectively chosen, it may falsely hide contrary evidence. Inductive reasoning thus needs trust and demonstration of integrity more than deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is also called Generalizing as it takes specific instances and creates a general rule. Inductive reasoning can create false ideas by moving from specific instances to general rules. Inductive (or Generalization) fallacies fail due to breaking the rules of this form of reasoning.

The Bible is riddled with mistakes. Many of those mistakes were scientific ones.

"There was evening and there was morning," we are told, "one day... a second day... a third day," but as any astronomer knows, evening (night) and morning (daylight) result from the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. With no sun, there would have certainly been evening or night, but there could have been no morning.

Ancient philosophers (influenced by religious beliefs) were not scientists who thought that the earth was undoubtedly the center of the universe, but today we know better. The solar system of which earth is only a tiny part is itself an infinitesimal speck in the universe.

It is also patently false that the Earth was though to be a disc by ancient thinkers. Eratosthenes proved it in the 3rd century BC, and even calculated its equatorial circumference to within 500 km. This was a generally acknowledged fact until the middle ages when education broke down because of religious fanatics, but the thinkers of the period all openly acknowledged the Earth's roundness. At no point since the pre-Socratics has any serious intellectual believed the Earth to be a flat disc.

Ptolemy estimated 1,100 stars in the fixed 8th sphere. But Ptolemy thought the Sun rotated around the Earth, and he was no scientist.

The exact function of the "molten sea" is not stated, though it seems most likely that it was a container for water used in the various rituals. The interesting point is that its upper rim seems to be circular in shape with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits. This is impossible, for the ratio of the circumference to the diameter (a ratio called "pi" by mathematicians) is given here as 30/10=3, whereas the real value of pi is an unending decimal which begins 3.14159... If the molten sea were really ten cubits in diameter it would have to be just under thirty-one and a half cubits in circumference. There is evidence that Babylonian mathematicians knew the value of pi.

God made the universe in 6 days should anyone believe this or decide that how the universe and life developed should just be "a permanent mystery." You are an uneducated dull clod.

Jacqueline

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.