Re: NO EVIDENCE OF GODS -- Or The Great Hope

[Mettas Mother]

In ancient times many people found it difficult to represent nothing. How to
represent nothing? If a symbol is used then that symbol would be something
and therefore it will not be nothing. However intelligent people invented
the symbol ZERO to represent the concept of nothing! Yes, SOMETHING could
be used to represent NOTHING!

However till now I do not know what the word 'GOD' represents. Is it
representing something or nothing? I personally had not seen or read or
heard any proof to deny or confirm that that is allegedly represented by the
word 'GOD'.

So persecutions should be stopped in view of the uncertainty that is facing
humanity!

Hello! I died some two thousand years ago and my views only represent the
dead! Thank you!

"Dan@V.A." <da...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8vkCh.12996$O8....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> It seems to me that atheist who invade Religious Newsgroups
> with their challenges, insults and attacks on Christians and the
> Christian Religion are in reality expressing their great hope.
> IE _the hope that there is no God.
> Could it be that they are searching for some reassurance of
> their own positions in respect to God and religion.
> If there is "No Evidence of Gods", so what: why does it matter
> to them? Why is it their concern if Christians believe that God
> exist? How is this any business of theirs? If they believe there
> is no God, fine it's their right. But Christians have the same right.
>
> I know they like to pretend that Christians try to shove their religion
> down their throats, this somehow in their minds justifies their attacks
> on Christians, but this is impossible to force conversion and futile
> even if it were for the simple reason it would not be an honest
> sincere conversion. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot
> force him to drink.
> >
> Is it possible that these people are unhappy themselves, so it
> galls them to recognize the satisfaction that religious people feel
> and express because of their religious faith.
>
> Dan
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >news:1171435012.6...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On 13 Feb., 22:47, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > "Semper Libèr" <nopolicesta...@freedom4all.org> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > >news:fdRzh.51593$Fd.968@edtnps90...
> > > >
> > > > > > > "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:XzMzh.4236$6a....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > > > > > > > It is interesting to observe that there are thousands of
> > different
> > > > God
> > > > > > > > beliefs but NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE ANY of these
Gods
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > exist.
> > > >
> > > > > > > What do you call resurrection?
> > > >
> > > > > > > Then there's this.... and a lot more....
> > > >
> > > > > > > The Anthropic Principle
> > > >
> > > > > > > In the last few decades scientists have increased their
> > > > under­standing
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the known universe through massive additions to our scientific
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a variety of fields including astrophysics, quantum physics,
and
> > > > > > > microbiological genetic research. The sum total of our
> scientific
> > > > > > knowledge
> > > > > > > is now doubling every twenty-four months - a staggering
increase
> > in
> > > > > > > information unprece­dented in human history. We are surely
> > > witnessing
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > fulfillment of the curious prediction of the prophet Daniel
made
> > > > > > twenty-five
> > > > > > > centuries ago: "Seal the book, even to the time of the end:
many
> > > shall
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased" (Daniel 12:4).
> > > >
> > > > > > > Among the new discoveries made by science recently, one of
the
> > most
> > > > > > > fascinating is called the anthropic principle. This anthropic
> > > > principle
> > > > > > > simply concludes that a staggering number of scientific
> variables
> > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > the composition of our atmosphere, the distance from the sun,
> the
> > > > > chemical
> > > > > > > composition of soil are precisely what is necessary for life
to
> > > exist
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > prosper.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Recent discoveries in the field of astronomy, for example,
prove
> > > that
> > > > > > human
> > > > > > > life could not survive if our solar system was even slightly
> > > > different.
> > > > > An
> > > > > > > astronomer, Dr. Jastrow, declared that even a small increase
in
> > the
> > > > > > nuclear
> > > > > > > forces that hold together all atoms would result in a universe
> of
> > > > stars
> > > > > > > composed primarily of helium instead of the present universe
in
> > > which
> > > > > > stars
> > > > > > > are made of hydrogen. In a universe with slightly increased
> > nuclear
> > > > > forces
> > > > > > > the helium stars would have burned up much more quickly than
our
> > > > > hydrogen
> > > > > > > stars. If the nuclear forces were slightly less, the carbon
> atoms
> > > > would
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > have formed. Without carbon atoms, life could not exist.
> > > >
> > > > > > > The same anthropic principle can be seen in the other
scientific
> > > > > variables
> > > > > > > such as the force of gravity which would make life impossible
if
> > the
> > > > > force
> > > > > > > were either much greater or much less. The communication
between
> > > every
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > of the trillion cells in our body is based on the earth's
> magnetic
> > > > > field.
> > > > > > > Therefore, a reduction of the strength of this magnetic field
> > beyond
> > > a
> > > > > > > certain level would make biological life impossible. Life
could
> > not
> > > > > exist
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > our earth was either too close or too far from the sun which
> > > provides
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > neces­sities of life through a complete spectrum of radiation
> > > > including
> > > > > > > visible light. The twenty-four hour rotation of our planet
> > > facilitates
> > > > > > life.
> > > > > > > If the planet did not rotate one half of the globe would be
> > desolate
> > > > > under
> > > > > > > the constant glare of the sun and the other half would freeze
in
> > > > > perpetual
> > > > > > > darkness. In sum total, the scientists have concluded that
there
> > are
> > > > > > dozens
> > > > > > > of these scientific factors that are precisely correct to
> > facilitate
> > > > > life
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > this planet.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Professor Jastrow suggests that "the universe was constructed
> > within
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it." 19
In
> > > other
> > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > this evidence in support of the anthropic principle strongly
> > argues
> > > > that
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > universe and earth were designed for the life of man by an
> > > intelligent
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > supernaturally powerful Creator. The evidence of brilliant
> design
> > > > > demands
> > > > > > > that an intelligent Designer must have created that design,
> namely
> > > > God.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > recent discoveries of science provide overwhelming evidence
that
> > the
> > > > > > > simplistic view of the atheists that our universe and life
could
> > > have
> > > > > > arisen
> > > > > > > by random chance over billions of years is scientifically
false.
> > In
> > > > > > summary
> > > > > > > these scientific discoveries demolish the evolutionary theory
of
> > the
> > > > > > > formation of life by ran­dom chance. These discoveries provide
> > > > > > > incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent Creator
purposely
> > > > designed
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > created both the universe and life itself.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe suggested that the anthropic
> principle
> > > > > strongly
> > > > > > > supported the theory of special creation, as opposed to
> evolution.
> > > > When
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > was asked if his scientific research proved that Charles
> Darwin's
> > > > theory
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > evolution was fatally flawed, he agreed. When asked how he
would
> > > > > evaluate
> > > > > > > the scien­tific arguments of the Creationists, who suggest
that
> > only
> > > > God
> > > > > > > could have created the universe and life itself, Dr.
> > Wickrama­singbe
> > > > > > > responded, "You mean the arguments that are justifica­tions of
> > their
> > > > > > > position? I think they have a very good case by and large." 20
> > > >
> > > > > > > 19. Robert Jastrow, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God
> > > (Chicago:
> > > > > > > Regnery Gateway, 1984) 100-103.
> > > >
> > > > > > > 20. Chandra Wickramasinghe, The Intellectuals Speak Out
About
> > God
> > > > > > > (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984) 36.
> > > >
> > > > > > One cannot help but notice that no one takes Semper to task,
> except
> > to
> > > > > > ridicule, simply deny or make unsupported claim that the
Anthropic
> > > > > > Principle has been disproven. The fact is atheist who invade
> > Christian
> > > > > > NGs are _not_ interested in a honest discussion regarding the
> > > evidence.
> > > > > > Rather they prefer to go about chanting over and over there is
> > > > > > "No evidence of God".
> > > >
> > > > > Arguing that evolution has been disproved is every bit as silly as
> > > > > arguing that the Earth is flat. There is no scientific
controversy.
> > > > > Evolution is a fact. We see it in action every day.
> > > >
> > > > > The Anthropic Principle is not about evolution. This post is
> > > > > not challenging evolution.
> > > > >From the post:
> > > >
> > > > "Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe suggested that the anthropic principle
> > > > strongly
> > > > supported the theory of special creation, as opposed to evolution.
> > > > When he
> > > > was asked if his scientific research proved that Charles Darwin's
> > > > theory of
> > > > evolution was fatally flawed, he agreed."
> > > >
> > > > You don't seem to know what you are posting do you? Do you read the
> > > > garbage before you punch "send"?
> > > >
> > > > The Anthropic Principle is not about evolution. Dr. Chandra
> > Wickrmasinghe
> > > > is wrong.
> > >
> > > I agree, and the anthropic principle is silly. Bye now; I can only
> > > deal with so many lunatics at one time.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[James]

Sample answer from the site:

Shem's "age discrepancy"
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html

Genesis 5:32, 7:6, 11:10
After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and
Japheth...Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on
the earth...This is the account of Shem. Two years after the flood,
when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. Looking
at these together, skeptics may deduce that Shem must have been 102,
not 100, when he bore Arphy. This is probably attributable to copyist
error or else "rounding" of years in the typical ANE style, in which
any part of a year is considered a whole year. But a reader added this
idea: Genesis 5:32 does not state that Shem was born when Noah was
500. It simply implies that Noah was 500 before he become a father of
any (or all) of his three sons. Shem's birth 98 years before the flood
(in harmony with Genesis 11:10) would make Noah 502 at the time, thus
proving the non-existence of any contradiction. Additionally, the fact
that Shem was listed first in Genesis 5:32 does not imply that Shem
was the oldest. Genesis 9:22-24 proves that, although Ham is listed
second in various lists of Noah's sons, Ham is actually the youngest!
Similarly, Genesis 10:21 shows that (according to an alternate reading
in the margin of the NASB), Japheth was actually the oldest son.
Therefore, it is very possible that Shem was actually the middle
child. The reason for Shem being listed first was his direct
connection to Abraham, the father of the Hebrews.