^Thanks for that moonrakers, i enjoyed that. Where do you find these freaky things, I want to see more.

neverdie

I'll have a dig around later to see what else I can find. This video stems from my interest in the Large Hadron Collider which really caught my interest as I love the idea that science might explain the more mystical stuff.

The string theory can help to explain a lot of things and what a Dr. said in one programme that I watched really caught my attention. I won't post the programme here because to be honest the rest of it was a bit crap but this Dr. explained that the consciousness is transmitted from one part of the brain and received by another and whilst it was being transmitted the consciousness particle was traveling through empty space and so it is possible, even if only for a fraction of a second, for our consciousness to live on even after our body dies.

Yeah. I too, am fascinated by the possible implications of the Hadron Collider.

I eagerly await!

String theory, quantum theory, chaos theory, relativity theory.... there could be some answers to all of those and probably more questions that nobody has thought to ask.

The new questions will be as exciting as the new answers.

Why can't the wretched Christians be satisfied with their own beliefs instead of making themselves look foolish trying to prove the planet is only thousands of years old rather than squillions?

Geology and biology based on a book of Jewish fairy tales and dietary laws.

When I come across this I ask them to show me where it says that the earth is only thousands of years old. Doesn't say it in the bible anywhere! In fact quite the opposite.

If you count the lifetimes and time frame of the bible, it suggests that the earth is 6000 years old.

Why can't the wretched Christians be satisfied with their own beliefs instead of making themselves look foolish trying to prove the planet is only thousands of years old rather than squillions?

Geology and biology based on a book of Jewish fairy tales and dietary laws.

When I come across this I ask them to show me where it says that the earth is only thousands of years old. Doesn't say it in the bible anywhere! In fact quite the opposite.

If you count the lifetimes and time frame of the bible, it suggests that the earth is 6000 years old.

I thought it was 4000'ish years. Perhaps I'm thinking of just the BC era.

Biblical scholars have indeed dated creation.....it is why so many of the pioneers of the varied branches of science found it difficult to put forward their findings. Gallileo, Darwin, and Copernicus to name a few.

It was only after Darwin's theory became popular by it's hard-to-argue evidence that the Christian churches devised the "Intelligent Design" explanation: Yeah, it's all very amazing how HE did it in the way HE has.

Prior to "Intelligent Design", atheists were considered all sorts of things including heretics and excentrics, now they are just "understandably misguided".

Why can't the wretched Christians be satisfied with their own beliefs instead of making themselves look foolish trying to prove the planet is only thousands of years old rather than squillions?

Geology and biology based on a book of Jewish fairy tales and dietary laws.

When I come across this I ask them to show me where it says that the earth is only thousands of years old. Doesn't say it in the bible anywhere! In fact quite the opposite.

If you count the lifetimes and time frame of the bible, it suggests that the earth is 6000 years old.

That's the point scead, it doesn't. Try it out if you like. There are huge gaps, and no starting date. I have looked into it in great detail and it's impossible to age the earth from the bible.

I can't believe I'm doing this.

4004 BC- 3004 BC Adam to Methusaleh

3004 BC - 2348 BC Ends with the Flood

2348 BC - 2004 BC Begins with the Flood

2004 BC - 1754 BC Abraham

1754 BC - 1504 BC Joseph in Egypt

1504 BC - 1254 BC Exodus

1254 BC - 1004 BC Judges to Solomon

1004 BC - 754 BC Division of Kingdoms

754 BC - 504 BC Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities, Daniel

504 BC - 254 BC Esther

254 BC - 1 AD Ptolemies govern Jews, Rome governs Jews

1 AD - 250 AD Ministry of Christ, Scattering of the Jews

250 AD - 500 AD Constantine and Ladocia Council

500 AD - 750 AD Birth of Mohammed, Rise of Catholic church and Papacy

750 AD - 1000 AD

1000 AD - 1500 AD

1500 AD - 1999 AD

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/timeline_online.html

Just in passing, did anyone ever work out who those sons of Adam married and where they came from?

http://www.plim.org/sphinx.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077390

Now the other view of the Great Sphinx was that its builder was a civilization that existed before the Egyptians. This civilization existed in the Ante-Diluvian age (i.e. before the great Flood). The time frame this group placed on the construction of the Sphinx is between 5,000 – 10,500 B.C. The Egyptians came later and built their tombs and temples along side and on top of these great structures.

"...Just in passing, did anyone ever work out who those sons of Adam married and where they came from? .."

In the old days, when I was too polite/naive to quickly dismiss the Jehova's Witnesses when they came calling, I used to ask that question. I can't recall a definitive answer.

I can't believe I'm doing this.

4004 BC- 3004 BC Adam to Methusaleh

3004 BC - 2348 BC Ends with the Flood

2348 BC - 2004 BC Begins with the Flood

2004 BC - 1754 BC Abraham

1754 BC - 1504 BC Joseph in Egypt

1504 BC - 1254 BC Exodus

1254 BC - 1004 BC Judges to Solomon

1004 BC - 754 BC Division of Kingdoms

754 BC - 504 BC Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities, Daniel

504 BC - 254 BC Esther

254 BC - 1 AD Ptolemies govern Jews, Rome governs Jews

1 AD - 250 AD Ministry of Christ, Scattering of the Jews

250 AD - 500 AD Constantine and Ladocia Council

500 AD - 750 AD Birth of Mohammed, Rise of Catholic church and Papacy

750 AD - 1000 AD

1000 AD - 1500 AD

1500 AD - 1999 AD

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/timeline_online.html

Just in passing, did anyone ever work out who those sons of Adam married and where they came from?

This is the problem with 'weak' bible study. Have a look at the list and answer the following questions. When was the beginning? It says 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't say when the days of creation started after this! When were the years of Adam's life actually started? If he was created in a condition of 'not dying' when he 'fell' the years of his life would start to be counted - when was this? The text makes neither clear. Then look at these beauties:

3004 BC - 2348 BC Ends with the Flood

2348 BC - 2004 BC Begins with the Flood

<deleted> does this mean? Thes figues make no sense at all, sit down with a bible and see. Oh yeah, another good one, how lond did the exodus last? For a start if you use this sites reckoning they're out by 202 years. And by the way, using the rational of this very poor web site even these figures are not correct! In fact the only dates that are almost correct in the above list is the Judges to Solomon dates,(and that's still 175 years out) and any historian can tell you that. No, the only way you're going to get this is to sit down and work it out for yourself. There is nothing in scripture that proves a 6000 year old earth! I do appreciate why some christians like the idea of 6000 years as they use the 7 being the number of divine completion to say that the 7th millenium will be the return of Christ and the first 1000 years of his reign - the millenium. But show me where any of the Gospel/epistle writers said this? They all wrote that the return of Jesus was immediate! Didn't they know that 7 was the number of divine completion? All my bible knowledge is from self study, I have never taken any bible writers word for it. There is so much <deleted> out there it's unreal! (particularly with the web!)

Dealing with the sons of Adam and who they married. They had many sons and daughters and they married their brothers and sisters. Gen 5.4 This was the top of the gene tree and incest wasn't disallowed until the law was given in the wilderness.

So don't believe what a handful of right-wing nutters say.

Would be an interesting poll to see how many here believe the bible ( as written ) to be a literal story.

Would be an interesting poll to see how many here believe the bible ( as written ) to be a literal story.

Sorry, but majority opinion has no bearing on fact. Everyone once believed the earth was flat.

Also, the "lost in translation" arguments are sure to figure alot in both sides of the "is it literal" argument.

Sorry, Flying, but I doubt if there would be much gained.

"Oh, it's a metaphor" is a common argument that I have heard. Although after using such an argument many creationists still then try to discredit the theory of evolution, for example. Why?

Would be an interesting poll to see how many here believe the bible ( as written ) to be a literal story.

Sorry, Flying, but I doubt if there would be much gained.

Oh I agree there is zero to be gained.

I was just thinking out of curiosity

Would be an interesting poll to see how many here believe the bible ( as written ) to be a literal story.

Sorry, Flying, but I doubt if there would be much gained.

Oh I agree there is zero to be gained.

I was just thinking out of curiosity

Yeah, it could be interesting. Go for it.

Would be an interesting poll to see how many here believe the bible ( as written ) to be a literal story.

Everyone once believed the earth was flat.

When did everyone believe the earth was flat???

Somewhere between Adam and Methuselah.

There either has to be a finite number of "souls", or an infinite number or "souls". There's logistical problems with either scenario.

I believe an infinite number of "souls" would be correct. Perhaps a good analogy would be numbers themselves. They are infinite while existing in a "space" based reality. If "space" is limited where do they all fit? Well, they obviously don't take up any space whatsoever since numbers are not physical. Would it be any different for "souls?" Of course that would imply that for "souls" to not take up space they cannot be physical in nature. Would that be closer to the truth?

Bumpity

I love this stuff.

Perhaps it is just one soul, which inhabits infinite universes. The double slit experiment suggests to us that new universes are being formed all the time and quantum physics tells us that particles can be in more than one place at any one time. Things are slightly different in each universe so in another universe we would be conceived 1 minute later, or 1hr, 1 year, 1000 years and so on. In essence we never actually die because we are always 'living' somewhere else.

Sort of like the movie 'prestige' where a magician has a machine that allows him to duplicate himself. As part of an act he drowns himself but before doing that he replicates himself. He kills himself, but is still alive.

And I have heard people say things like they have 'died', been resuscitated and their experience was that nothing happened. They say that there is no life after death, there is just nothing.

But, how can they be absolutely sure they didn't die?

Nothing to be afraid of....although many religions would like to charge you to believe otherwise.

There either has to be a finite number of "souls", or an infinite number or "souls". There's logistical problems with either scenario.

I believe an infinite number of "souls" would be correct. Perhaps a good analogy would be numbers themselves. They are infinite while existing in a "space" based reality. If "space" is limited where do they all fit? Well, they obviously don't take up any space whatsoever since numbers are not physical. Would it be any different for "souls?" Of course that would imply that for "souls" to not take up space they cannot be physical in nature. Would that be closer to the truth?

Bumpity

I love this stuff.

Perhaps it is just one soul, which inhabits infinite universes. The double slit experiment suggests to us that new universes are being formed all the time and quantum physics tells us that particles can be in more than one place at any one time. Things are slightly different in each universe so in another universe we would be conceived 1 minute later, or 1hr, 1 year, 1000 years and so on. In essence we never actually die because we are always 'living' somewhere else.

Sort of like the movie 'prestige' where a magician has a machine that allows him to duplicate himself. As part of an act he drowns himself but before doing that he replicates himself. He kills himself, but is still alive.

Hawking recanted and decided that information is NOT lost in a black hole. In so doing, he has postulated that there are parralel universes. Brian Cox tends to agree. I have not heard Michio Kaku's take (He's a tad more "spiritual" and thus less inclined to make any controversial statements, I think). Simple little me would not dare argue, so I have to agree.

Bumpity

I love this stuff.

You sound like a kid in a candy shop with a fistful of money. Keeristt! The dead (thread) has arisen! It's almost spooky.

I'll have to get up the nerve to post in it again.

There either has to be a finite number of "souls", or an infinite number or "souls". There's logistical problems with either scenario.

I believe an infinite number of "souls" would be correct. Perhaps a good analogy would be numbers themselves. They are infinite while existing in a "space" based reality. If "space" is limited where do they all fit? Well, they obviously don't take up any space whatsoever since numbers are not physical. Would it be any different for "souls?" Of course that would imply that for "souls" to not take up space they cannot be physical in nature. Would that be closer to the truth?

Bumpity

I love this stuff.

Perhaps it is just one soul, which inhabits infinite universes. The double slit experiment suggests to us that new universes are being formed all the time and quantum physics tells us that particles can be in more than one place at any one time. Things are slightly different in each universe so in another universe we would be conceived 1 minute later, or 1hr, 1 year, 1000 years and so on. In essence we never actually die because we are always 'living' somewhere else.

Sort of like the movie 'prestige' where a magician has a machine that allows him to duplicate himself. As part of an act he drowns himself but before doing that he replicates himself. He kills himself, but is still alive.

Hawking recanted and decided that information is NOT lost in a black hole. In so doing, he has postulated that there are parralel universes. Brian Cox tends to agree. I have not heard Michio Kaku's take (He's a tad more "spiritual" and thus less inclined to make any controversial statements, I think). Simple little me would not dare argue, so I have to agree.

i think parallel universes are more or less accepted as a workable theory, I think Kaku subscribes to it also. I'm sure he has done something on Schrodinger's cat.

Of course we can't prove it (yet), but there is rather a lot of evidence supporting it. Maybe one day we could not only prove these parallel universes but even probe them. Now THAT would be cool.

Bumpity

I love this stuff.

You sound like a kid in a candy shop with a fistful of money. Keeristt! The dead (thread) has arisen! It's almost spooky.

I'll have to get up the nerve to post in it again.

I like your ghost

i think parallel universes are more or less accepted as a workable theory, I think Kaku subscribes to it also. I'm sure he has done something on Schrodinger's cat.

Of course we can't prove it (yet), but there is rather a lot of evidence supporting it. Maybe one day we could not only prove these parallel universes but even probe them. Now THAT would be cool.

The hadron collider will probably open up the possibilty.

Lets say that there are an infinite number of parallel you's. Would any of you share the same experiences/history? If not, would it be correct to say that it is another you?

Or is each alternate you just one point on a single line....your timeline? ( I lean towards this option)

If so, then we're getting back to the OP.......and I suggest that regardless of an infinite number of you's (and no need for any sheep jokes here ) once your timeline ends, that's it...it doesn't extend further......which also implies that the number of you's is huge yet finite....even if they all exist in perpetuity....there is one you that becomes the oldest possible version, and then the line ends.

Just in passing, did anyone ever work out who those sons of Adam married and where they came from?

Lilith ??

(Adam's spouse before Eve)

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

Lilith was the original feminist - she left Adam rather than become subservient to him. She mated with the Archangel Samael, so presumably produced off-spring.

Amazing to see someone quoting Archbishop Ussher's Chronology of the World! I thought that had gone out with the flat-earthers.

Has somebody on this thread quoted Henry James' last words, "And now there is the great thing." (or something like that)?

We shall see.

"Oh, it's a metaphor" is a common argument that I have heard. Although after using such an argument many creationists still then try to discredit the theory of evolution, for example. Why?

It must be a metaphor. There would be no other way for God to explain things to people who were walking around thousands of years ago. Imagine trying to explain the Internet to someone from 300 years ago. Then imagine trying to explain the Big Bang Theory to someone 3000 years ago. I imagine that even God has limited patience and decided that breaking creation up into something the primitives could understand - 7 days, "let there be light" - was the best way to go.

I also imagine that if mankind is still around in 2000 years and has continually progressed then much of what we consider fact today (courtesy of the likes of Hawking) will seem like childish fairy tales in the year 2311.

"Oh, it's a metaphor" is a common argument that I have heard. Although after using such an argument many creationists still then try to discredit the theory of evolution, for example. Why?

It must be a metaphor. There would be no other way for God to explain things to people who were walking around thousands of years ago. Imagine trying to explain the Internet to someone from 300 years ago. Then imagine trying to explain the Big Bang Theory to someone 3000 years ago. I imagine that even God has limited patience and decided that breaking creation up into something the primitives could understand - 7 days, "let there be light" - was the best way to go.

I also imagine that if mankind is still around in 2000 years and has continually progressed then much of what we consider fact today (courtesy of the likes of Hawking) will seem like childish fairy tales in the year 2311.

I agree with your first paragraph....if only it didn't imply an acceptance of God.

As for your second paragraph.........I see what you are saying, and there is a chance that you're right, in fact a huge probability that you're right in many cases......but some things surely are simply fact and known as such now, and will still be the same known fact in 2000 years. Surely.

I agree with your first paragraph....if only it didn't imply an acceptance of God.

It goes hand in hand, doesn't it? Can anyone accept the Bible as truth but deny the existence of God? If one accepts both, they would have to - IMO - accept that the Bible is chock full of metaphors because 2000-3000 years ago mankind didn't have the knowledge to understand what it takes to create a universe. Perhaps we don't even have it today - but we think we do much like they thought they did back then. As far as I'm concerned. it's all still just theory.

"Oh, it's a metaphor" is a common argument that I have heard. Although after using such an argument many creationists still then try to discredit the theory of evolution, for example. Why?

It must be a metaphor. There would be no other way for God to explain things to people who were walking around thousands of years ago. Imagine trying to explain the Internet to someone from 300 years ago. Then imagine trying to explain the Big Bang Theory to someone 3000 years ago. I imagine that even God has limited patience and decided that breaking creation up into something the primitives could understand - 7 days, "let there be light" - was the best way to go.

I also imagine that if mankind is still around in 2000 years and has continually progressed then much of what we consider fact today (courtesy of the likes of Hawking) will seem like childish fairy tales in the year 2311.

But god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to. If he could not explain to people how it worked, regardless of how long ago it was, then his power must be limited. He is no longer the all powerful being, how would that fit with the believers?

And I don't think we'll ever look back on science as childish fairy tales. Incorrect, yes. Fairy tales, no. It's just trying to get the best possible answers according to what we have available at that time and the stuff that is wrong is a stepping stone to the stuff that is right. We used to think the atom was the smallest thing there is but look now where that has lead us to. Nobody thinks it was childish fairy tales that we thought the atom was the smallest thing. Neither do we think Newton's theory was childish fairy tales in spite of the fact we now know it is wrong.

Religion is not interested in the truth, science is all about finding the truth.