Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1391620 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
wow, a post explaining how God created the world from literal interpretation of the Bible, and 3 pages of blasting this open. I'll abstain from that discussion, because the literal reading of THIS is just wrong. Just one phrase out of comments to Gen 1 from my Bible: "In Aramaic, the word "day" does not mean a certain length of time, it means a period of time with an unknown length", supported by Psalms 90:4.
I suggest you read through this. It explains how aurora borealis can be seen much further south than normal, it even includes two recent examples of aurora borealis happening quite far to the south. I would also like to ask where you got the 2500km number from, I have not found that anywhere.Okay, just have read that, and this site confirms non-auroral source of that light. If you see the topmost picture, you can clearly see that Europe is the red zone of aurora activity, meaning that even a maximum solar activity does not reach the area where the glow was visible. Also I'd like to remind you that this was in January, while the peaks of auroras are April and September/October, thus that month was the month of the least auroral activity. Mt Wilson event consists of three parts, maximal solar activity, maximal Earth receptive season (March 31), geomagnetic substorm. Note also that northern geomagnetic pole is offset to Canada by a whole 9.5 degrees, thus auroral rings are in favor to Northern America, making an account of seeing an aurora at N 34.22 in US more favorable than in Europe on the same latitude, and about as favorable as seeing this aurora in Paris, France (N 48.5), while the evidence reported the 1938 lighting to be seen in northern Africa (N 36.5). The data on magnetic pole location in 1938 is not available for me, and given that currently the magnetic pole drifts towards north pole by ~0.6 deg per year, and adding that its movement is rather stochastic than directed somewhere, it will be an adequate assumption to place the 1938 NMP at the point of 2005 NMP which is 82.7N 114.4W by Wikipedia data. This gives more probability for an aurora borealis in 1938 to ever reach North Africa, but that place is still outside the region painted blue in your link, by something that looks like 14 degrees (1540 km). Too far. The 2500 km is an estimate of 1881, taken from Wikipedia on aurora. The recent data, including your picture, give a little more room for auroras to appear, but these margins are still not enough.
OK, please prove wrong: unicorns, the IPU, The FSM, goblins, pixies, faries etc.*yawns* Any supportive evidence of any of these? (however there are some about pixies and fairies) I have given you supportive evidence for God, you say "rove". You assume there's an IPU, I say "rove", but then you say "NO U". The dialogue with you stops giving anything good. I'd advise you to rethink your position.
Please tell us what they are, also please tell us how you know what god did was true.Read the topic, there are links to supportive evidence.
I doubt the stuppid goatherds thought that anyway
Genesis was generally regarded as an accurate depiction of events until about the 18th century. At which time our knowledge advanced and This chapters became regarded as metaphor by many.
there was no time for starlight to come to earth, we evolved a lot more than 7000 years ago and it doesn't matter about solar eclipses. They don't affect us.
That's a good point if the universe was only 7000 years old we wouldn't see anything beyond 7000 light years, yet we do.
For example here's a nebula 8000ly away.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/weewilly/2364526715/
The fact we can get a picture of this nebula contradicts a 7000 year old universe.
People were bigger, there were gigantic reptiles and insects, and people and animals lived longer.
The reason why at some point there were giant flying insects, like dragonflies with 70cm wing span, is very probably the higher level of oxygen in the atmosphere, however, the oxygen drop was much older than you imply and had other reasons like it has already been pointed out. Also, this didn't really affect the dinosaurs. And you should know that it is genetically impossible for humans to become as old as those people in the bible were supposed to get.
Anyway even if there were big humans in the carbonifere, why haven't we found fossils of giant humans, or giant ruins?
why haven't we found fossils of giant humans, or giant ruins?
I'll wait for those either faked or otherwise debunked images to be posted.
Anyway what we do find is humans on average have actually gotten slightly taller. Which makes sense given we don't have predators to contend with and we have an abundant food supply.
Which makes sense given we don't have predators to contend with and we have an abundant food supply.
that... or height is just a trait people are generally attracted to... not uber tall... their height or (give or take an inch or two..) ...a sligthly above average height guy may have more luck w/ the ladies as opposed to someone who is 4ft tall and an another who has the 9ft giant disorder. so... the average height climbs progressively higher and higher. ...granted there are still a few ladies out there that fall for the uber tall and/or vertically challenged individuals. If its just a matter of food supply and nutrition then we aren't really gaining anything we didn't already have... we're just more efficient with our nutrition. I think that for us to have gotten progressively taller over generations it would call for some factor other than just nutrition... although it does make a difference in the optimization of growth plates and such compared to a malnourished individual person.
that... or height is just a trait people are generally attracted to... not uber tall... their height or (give or take an inch or two..) ...a sligthly above average height guy may have more luck w/ the ladies as opposed to someone who is 4ft tall and an another who has the 9ft giant disorder.
Yes that's a possibility as well.
If its just a matter of food supply and nutrition then we aren't really gaining anything we didn't already have... we're just more efficient with our nutrition.
The increased efficiency has also produced a more readily available supply. Which is a major factor in sustaining a larger body.
I think that for us to have gotten progressively taller over generations it would call for some factor other than just nutrition.
Yes, that's why I also mentioned the lack of predators.
Okay, just have read that, and this site confirms non-auroral source of that light. If you see the topmost picture, you can clearly see that Europe is the red zone of aurora activity, meaning that even a maximum solar activity does not reach the area where the glow was visible. Also I'd like to remind you that this was in January, while the peaks of auroras are April and September/October, thus that month was the month of the least auroral activity. Mt Wilson event consists of three parts, maximal solar activity, maximal Earth receptive season (March 31), geomagnetic substorm. Note also that northern geomagnetic pole is offset to Canada by a whole 9.5 degrees, thus auroral rings are in favor to Northern America, making an account of seeing an aurora at N 34.22 in US more favorable than in Europe on the same latitude, and about as favorable as seeing this aurora in Paris, France (N 48.5), while the evidence reported the 1938 lighting to be seen in northern Africa (N 36.5). The data on magnetic pole location in 1938 is not available for me, and given that currently the magnetic pole drifts towards north pole by ~0.6 deg per year, and adding that its movement is rather stochastic than directed somewhere, it will be an adequate assumption to place the 1938 NMP at the point of 2005 NMP which is 82.7N 114.4W by Wikipedia data. This gives more probability for an aurora borealis in 1938 to ever reach North Africa, but that place is still outside the region painted blue in your link, by something that looks like 14 degrees (1540 km). Too far. The 2500 km is an estimate of 1881, taken from Wikipedia on aurora. The recent data, including your picture, give a little more room for auroras to appear, but these margins are still not enough.
The picture you continually cite is from one day. One day does not tell every possible location for an aurora. If one were to base the weather off of one day, he/she might say that it rains every day in a certain location. This is not true obviously. What is needed is a collection of dates, the larger the better, and it still might not show every single possibility.
The picture you continually cite is from one day. One day does not tell every possible location for an aurora.Agreed, although this being one of the maximal possible auroral expansions, so it's highly unlikely that an aurora can occur outside the drawn region. And I'm only stating that's highly improbable that this glow was an aurora borealis. I have also found a source that stated this glow was seen both in Scotland (N 56, Edinburgh) and in northern Africa (N 34.2, Rabat Source) making a 22 degrees wide aurora, and given sightings in Bermuda and Canada (N 32.3 and say Montreal, N 45.5 as the closest point), the ring is slighly offset by its thickness (I'd say twice the thickness on that photo) and radius, about the highest border of that picture.
However, this explanation of the event is covering the entire set of its aspects, albeit incompletely, so it's accepted as true by most. Still the chances of such an aurora appearing naturally is extremely slim (while nonzero).
Still the chances of such an aurora appearing naturally is extremely slim (while nonzero).
So basically your saying any rare event in nature is God?
So basically your saying any rare event in nature is God?
But everything is god remember. The problem with most of vespers proof for god is they rely on god existing.
*yawns* Any supportive evidence of any of these? (however there are some about pixies and fairies) I have given you supportive evidence for God, you say "rove". You assume there's an IPU, I say "rove", but then you say "NO U". The dialogue with you stops giving anything good. I'd advise you to rethink your position.
Your fatima explanation for mage's one wasn't satisfactory and apart from that you have no proof. Even if mages was untrue one unexplainable event doesn't prove as complex a being as god. Stories about faries and pixies are in loads of cultures. It couldn't just be parallel evolution. As it stands the FSM and IPU have as much proof as god.
Well there is "roof" for unicorns, biblical "roof":
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"â"Job 39:9â"12
I have not yet felt God call upon me, but he has to my aunt and uncle, they had no idea i ever existed but God called upon them to take me in, then God called upon my new father to adopt, wherever my parents went adoption always came up so they adopted me
grimml, well, it's nice you have mentioned the Bible as evidence. Still, this text means that unicorns serve God, so they are not any kind of gods.
So basically your saying any rare event in nature is God?Well, it can be for some reason. And this one isn't even "rare" given its spread and power beyond what's to reasonably accept from a usual aurora. I know coincidences happen, but this one is too big to explain with only a coincidence. Also there's a solar activity data which stated that the magnetic storm in Jan 25-26, 1938 was not of a solar origin here:
No large sunspot was near the Sun's central meridian at the time of the storm, the great spot (2) having just passed round the west limb.Geomagnetic activity is also reported as being in the normal range: Page 1 Page 2 Source, "Catalogue of geomagnetic storms (1938-1948)". Legend: 4th column is month, date, hour of storm start, 5th column is day, hour of storm stop, 6th column is length in hours, last column is overall classification (Y being moderate, B - big, Ob - very big). So in fact the geomagnetic and solar conditions were unable to produce an aurora at that date.
Well, it can be for some reason.
If it is possible without God then that just makes adding God superfluous. Also "God did it" isn't the default position.
Well, my point is that certain events can't happen normally if investigated further. Also, you have ignored all the data I have provided.
You must be logged in to post a reply!