[Discussion] Is God a mystery or a man?

[Multiply]

They weren't good in disproving what I stated. The egyptains built the pyramids so it's not a far stretch than an even older civilization could use dynamite. So there's no way you can dismiss that teaching. Your information can only go as far as what this civilization provides. They discover new "hidden" underground civilizations that once existed all the time. And scientists agree that the moon used to be apart of the earth so it's not a far stretch to say that someone blew it off. Especially when famous astronauts have said it smelled like gunpowder (no I'm not letting that go I've seen it myself before).

So you're saying they were making and using dynamite before the pyramids were created?

 

[BrillyMac]

So you're saying they were making and using dynamite before the pyramids were created?

Yes and you shouldn't assume that they didn't. When you have things like the pyramids that are called one of the 7 wonders of the world because modern scientists say it would have been impossible to build at the time, who knows what else previous civilizations had in their grasps. In like the 1980s or 70s the Japanese tried to guide pyramids with modern technology and it was an epic fail. The pyramids in Egypt not only are highly mathematical, they align with the stars, and serve as tombs, they also have secret rooms everywhere that are still being discovered to this day. They are also said to have water irrigation systems. Did you know the height times the base of the pyramids equal pi? (I might have the sides wrong but some thing like that). Did you knwo each brick weighs 2 tons. It would be impossible for man to do that with his bare hands and even with a group. It was tested by the Japanese. So something as simple as dynamite is not a far stretch to have existed to me. Their civilizations hid their knowledge and it has not been close to being all unearthed. They are still unearthing old pyramids.

 

[Multiply]

Yes and you shouldn't assume that they didn't. When you have things like the pyramids that are called one of the 7 wonders of the world because modern scientists say it would have been impossible to build at the time, who knows what else previous civilizations had in their grasps. In like the 1980s or 70s the Japanese tried to guide pyramids with modern technology and it was an epic fail. The pyramids in Egypt not only are highly mathematical, they align with the stars, and serve as tombs, they also have secret rooms everywhere that are still being discovered to this day. They are also said to have water irrigation systems. Did you know the height times the base of the pyramids equal pi? (I might have the sides wrong but some thing like that). Did you knwo each brick weighs 2 tons. It would be impossible for man to do that with his bare hands and even with a group. It was tested by the Japanese. So something as simple as dynamite is not a far stretch to have existed to me. Their civilizations hid their knowledge and it has not been close to being all unearthed. They are still unearthing old pyramids.

Except it was not impossible for them to build. There's proof that they literally practiced how to build pyramids all over Egypt. In the modern era we can't build them like the Egyptians did because simply we can't force people to work for those longs hours required to build it. Not to mention how skilled each individual has to be to actually cut, shape, and place the rocks. You're acting as if it's some kind of miracle that they did these things, but in reality it took them hundreds upon hundreds(If not thousands) of years of generational practice and knowledge gathering in order to perfect them.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Mutations have already happened even in modern day. Feel free to look them up. And you must not know how complex a life form is if you're actually saying that lol.

Saying what exactly?

Holy shit you're idiotic. So you're dismissing the heaps and mounds of evidence for evolution because they haven't yet found a mutation that adds brand new information.

Well yeah, I mean, that is quite literally an extremely important part of the theory, yet they have not proven it to be true even once. How then can I believe that a single celled life form turned into things such as humans, which require more genetic information, when they've yet to prove mutations can actually add information?

I want ask you something, and I am genuinely curious. Why on Earth are there so many hoaxes presented as evidence for evolution if it's such a well-proven theory? Nebraska man, the Whale's pelvic bones, neanderthal man, piltdown man, the Human tailbone and appendix, etc. You say there is so much evidence, yet all I've ever seen in terms of any evidence is fakes and hoaxes.

You'll dismiss all of that information but you'll believe in a religion that has literally zero tangible evidence?

No, even as an athesit/agnostic, I rejected evolution, because it never made sense to me, and because there is not has there ever been any information to prove evolution as fact to begin with.I can't dismiss something that's not there.

If I get proof of it, I'll believe, it's as simple as that. But the fact that scientists insist on keeping already proven fake evidence circulating as fact is honestly a pretty big red flag to begin with that the theory is fake as hell.

My religion does have proof for it, that's why I embraced it to begin with, but that is besides the point.

What you're saying is like hundreds of years ago saying humans with all of their intellect haven't created cars yet or something. The simple answer is we aren't there yet. Also, I love that you're saying since humans can't do it it's impossible. Your logic is infallible.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I mean, there aren't scientists out there saying that cars came about by mutations and randomness.

I never said it's impossible, but those who believe in a Godless evolution would literally have to believe randomness was better at creating life than all the minds of scientists today, who can't even come close to doing so.

And there was no randomness. Evolution is not blind chance or random at all.

With no agent to direct it, yes, it would very well be random. It doesn't matter whether you choose to refer to this randomness as "randomness" or use a fancier term like "engine of natural selection", it's still random. Just because one creature supposedly is more fit than the others, that doesn't at all guarantee it's survival.

But that's already going too far ahead. Evolution has yet to prove it's first fundamental step in the process: Mutations adding new information, and thus, new abilities/organs. Until a massive hurdle like that is overcome and proven/observed (not to mention how life began), one shouldn't be worrying about things like how randomness natural selection happened to pick the best of the bunch every single time.

If it were random, organisms wouldn't share similar traits.

I don't understand how that conclusion works

 

[Multiply]

Saying what exactly?

Well yeah, I mean, that is quite literally an extremely important part of the theory, yet they have not proven it to be true even once. How then can I believe that a single celled life form turned into things such as humans, which require more genetic information, when they've yet to prove mutations can actually add information?

I want ask you something, and I am genuinely curious. Why on Earth are there so many hoaxes presented as evidence for evolution if it's such a well-proven theory? Nebraska man, the Whale's pelvic bones, neanderthal man, piltdown man, the Human tailbone and appendix, etc. You say there is so much evidence, yet all I've ever seen in terms of any evidence is fakes and hoaxes.

Because it's a theory.

You must be registered for see images

That's the thing about science. You can dispute it until it has proven itself to be a law.

No, even as an athesit/agnostic, I rejected evolution, because it never made sense to me, and because there is not has there ever been any information to prove evolution as fact to begin with. I can't dismiss something that's not there.

Because it doesn't make sense to you it's instantly completely false?

If I get proof of it, I'll believe, it's as simple as that. But the fact that scientists insist on keeping already proven fake evidence circulating as fact is honestly a pretty big red flag to begin with that the theory is fake as hell.

Because it's the best theory we have. What you fail to realize is a theory does not literally have to be law for it to be correct or considered in the grand scheme of things. Take the theory of gravity for example.

My religion does have proof for it, that's why I embraced it to begin with, but that is besides the point.

You must be registered for see images

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I mean, there aren't scientists out there saying that cars came about by mutations and randomness.

No, but you're saying simply because we haven't found the answer yet(With all of the information we do have), there will never be an answer therefor is a fairytail. It's as if you're trying to compare science with blind faith.

I never said it's impossible, but those who believe in a Godless evolution would literally have to believe randomness was better at creating life than all the minds of scientists today, who can't even come close to doing so.

And yet it's not random. It's clearly a driven process.

With no agent to direct it, yes, it would very well be random. It doesn't matter whether you choose to refer to this randomness as "randomness" or use a fancier term like "engine of natural selection", it's still random. Just because one creature supposedly is more fit than the others, that doesn't at all guarantee it's survival.

If it doesn't survive it wasn't fit to survive. That's literally what that means. If an old man dies of 'natural causes' he was not fit to survive in the environment he lived. It's a very simple concept.

But that's already going too far ahead. Evolution has yet to prove it's first fundamental step in the process: Mutations adding new information, and thus, new abilities/organs. Until a massive hurdle like that is overcome and proven/observed (not to mention how life began), one shouldn't be worrying about things like how randomness natural selection happened to pick the best of the bunch every single time.

But the latter portion has been observed. So there must be an explanation for the former, correct? So then it's not unnatural for humans(With all our intelligence, duh) to hypothesize or theorize about the process of such a thing.

I don't understand how that conclusion works

You must be registered for see images

 

[Made in Heaven]

Because it's a theory.

You must be registered for see images

That's the thing about science. You can dispute it until it has proven itself to be a law.

So your reply to there being NO proof whatsoever of mutations adding information and the numerous hoaxes to support evolution is "it's just a theory" ?

You just basically admitted evolution isn't a fact. That's all I'm arguing here. And given that this theory has gaping hole in it (mutations being unable to add new info) why do you find it so absurd for me to not believe it?

Because it doesn't make sense to you it's instantly completely false?

It's false to me. Just as god is false to you.

Because it's the best theory we have. What you fail to realize is a theory does not literally have to be law for it to be correct or considered in the grand scheme of things. Take the theory of gravity for example.

No, I understand that theories don't have to be 100% fact to be accepted, they just have to be the best theory out there. And in my eyes, believing in Intelligent Design makes more sense than believing in Evolution, especially with the numerous holes the theory has and the imminence lack of proof for crucial points in the theory and the absurd dependence on luck and randomness in terms of the supposed mutations.

No, but you're saying simply because we haven't found the answer yet(With all of the information we do have), there will never be an answer therefor is a fairytail. It's as if you're trying to compare science with blind faith.

Above you just admitted that there has been no proof of Mutations adding information, as you called evolution a theory, yet you believe in it despite it's flaws and missing pieces. That's blind faith in and of itself.

I'm arguing that if randomness can cause one cell to be formed in a primitive earth through natural events, why are humans unable to create the same with all the equipment and intelligence they have? I don't think I need o tell you that our science labs are far more advanced than a primitive earth's surface, and that we have access to much more resources, so if even with all the advantages humans have, and yet they are unable to make life, I argue it can't be done.

And even if it is done, it'll just prove what I've been saying all along: That intelligence is needed to create life

And yet it's not random. It's clearly a driven process.

If it doesn't survive it wasn't fit to survive. That's literally what that means. If an old man dies of 'natural causes' he was not fit to survive in the environment he lived. It's a very simple concept.

K, I accept this .

But the latter portion has been observed. So there must be an explanation for the former, correct? So then it's not unnatural for humans(With all our intelligence, duh) to hypothesize or theorize about the process of such a thing.

Yes, I understand that Natural Selection has been observed. And that's all it proves: that specimens of one species are more likely to survive if they are healthier, stronger, faster, etc. But how does that at all explain the problem of mutations being unable to actually add new info, and thus, evolve simple lifeforms into more complex ones?

About the hypothesizing and theorizing bit. Is it really that absurd to theorize ID could be the cause of life? Why is ID theory always rejected without any serious consideration by non-religious scientists? It's as valid a theory as any, to propose the idea that the natural world had a supernatural cause.

 

[Avani 👑]

If I get proof of it, I'll believe, it's as simple as that. But the fact that scientists insist on keeping already proven fake evidence circulating as fact is honestly a pretty big red flag to begin with that the theory is fake as hell.
........
My religion does have proof for it, that's why I embraced it to begin with, but that is besides the point.
........

Not all of us understand all the scientific concepts out there or even try to. That doesn't make them false. But after rejecting theory of evolution and questioning validity of scientific method if someone proceeds to believe in existence of a scientist name Yakub creating evil race and another using dynamite to make moon....

 

[Made in Heaven]

Not all of us understand all the scientific concepts out there or even try to. But that doesn't make them false. But after rejecting theory of evolution and questioning validity of scientific method if someone proceeds to believe in existence of a scientist name Yakub creating evil race and another using dynamite to make moon....

I don't believe that though. I'm a Muslim

 

[Avani 👑]

I don't believe that though. I'm a Muslim

Well seeing the number religions and of sects within each religion out there with their own theories regarding the creation as well as afterlife, talking about 'evidence' kind of defeats the idea of being the only truth. It's only going to get in a cycle of arguments. Religions should stick to spirituality and leave the science alone. Just my opinion regarding this whole "evolution" issue.

 

[Multiply]

So your reply to there being NO proof whatsoever of mutations adding information and the numerous hoaxes to support evolution is "it's just a theory" ?

You just basically admitted evolution isn't a fact. That's all I'm arguing here. And given that this theory has gaping hole in it (mutations being unable to add new info) why do you find it so absurd for me to not believe it?

Literally because it's a theory. For some reason you've been told that theory means fact which is not the case. Theory essentially means it's an accepted understanding of something that has evidence to back up the claim. So though there is 'no' evidence or proof of mutations adding information there is evidence of the product of such a thing. Thus, the theory.

I didn't find it absurd that you didn't believe in it. I found it absurd that you didn't believe in it, yet acted as if religion had any tangible evidence.

It's false to me. Just as god is false to you.

There is no evidence for God. There is a theory of evolution. I'd agree with you but it's really not one or the other in this case. One actually has evidence for it and the other doesn't.

No, I understand that theories don't have to be 100% fact to be accepted, they just have to be the best theory out there. And in my eyes, believing in Intelligent Design makes more sense than believing in Evolution, especially with the numerous holes the theory has and the imminence lack of proof for crucial points in the theory and the absurd dependence on luck and randomness in terms of the supposed mutations.

@Bold makes this entire exchange pretty damn meaningless if you understand this much.

As for the rest, you're basically saying because of the lack of evidence in a theory, you'll run to an idea that has a complete lack of evidence. If that's what you want to do I can't stop you.

Above you just admitted that there has been no proof of Mutations adding information, as you called evolution a theory, yet you believe in it despite it's flaws and missing pieces. That's blind faith in and of itself.

You're confused again. There's still evidence to support the theory of evolution. It's like saying we don't share a common ancestor with chimps because they hadn't found the common ancestor yet. We knew the ancestor existed, we just hadn't found it yet. I don't have faith in science, I understand it.

I'm arguing that if randomness can cause one cell to be formed in a primitive earth through natural events, why are humans unable to create the same with all the equipment and intelligence they have? I don't think I need o tell you that our science labs are far more advanced than a primitive earth's surface, and that we have access to much more resources, so if even with all the advantages humans have, and yet they are unable to make life, I argue it can't be done.

It's because of how complex it is. Again, you're assuming that because we haven't done it yet, that it will never happen. You are extremely confused with the processes of science and someone has been force feeding you misconceptions. It's blatant at this point. It just sounds like you're regurgitating talking points.

And even if it is done, it'll just prove what I've been saying all along: That intelligence is needed to create life

This is the most retarded conclusion I've ever read, I think. If we can't create life, God did it. If we can create life, God did it.

Checkmate, am I right?

You must be registered for see images

Yes, I understand that Natural Selection has been observed. And that's all it proves: that specimens of one species are more likely to survive if they are healthier, stronger, faster, etc. But how does that at all explain the problem of mutations being unable to actually add new info, and thus, evolve simple lifeforms into more complex ones?

You do know you can do all of this research yourself, right? I can provide you with the sources if you wish. I can tell you this until the end of time, but if you do the research yourself I don't have to keep repeating myself.

About the hypothesizing and theorizing bit. Is it really that absurd to theorize ID could be the cause of life? Why is ID theory always rejected without any serious consideration by non-religious scientists? It's as valid a theory as any, to propose the idea that the natural world had a supernatural cause.

There is no tangible evidence. It could never be a proper theory because of the extreme lack of evidence. If you had one shred of evidence, the best it could be is a hypothesis. A scientific theory has to have a very extreme amount of evidence.

 

[Agent Phrank]

Re:al

Scientists don't even have one, I repeat, not even one, example of a mutation adding brand new information. I'm not talking about already-existing information losing some information or being rearranged to make something slightly different, but the actual creation of new information. With no evidence of mutations adding information, it's amazing people still believe this fairy tale to be science when the very basis for the theory has never been proven once.

Random mutations? Please these are all assumptions has this ever been observed and measured in a lab? If there is proof scientists should be able to make life in a lab. The fact they haven't means there is no proof and as such this is still no more than a theory.

Also mutations have never produced positive results, just take a look at albinism which is a naturally occurring mutation.

Yes humans may have shared a common ancestor but the ape came first no?

What about lactose tolerance, atherosclerosis resistance, apolipoprotein, and the heterozygous advantage of sickle cell anemia?

Yes and you shouldn't assume that they didn't. When you have things like the pyramids that are called one of the 7 wonders of the world because modern scientists say it would have been impossible to build at the time,

Who are these modern scientists? Nothing is impossible.

who knows what else previous civilizations had in their grasps. In like the 1980s or 70s the Japanese tried to guide pyramids with modern technology and it was an epic fail.

One of the reasons for failure was that the Egyptians(and other civilizations) cleared the sand down to the bedrock for the pyramid. The Japanese didn't. Improper technique and tools also factor in too. They tried to recreate something that was planned years ahead.

The pyramids in Egypt not only are highly mathematical, they align with the stars, and serve as tombs, they also have secret rooms everywhere that are still being discovered to this day.

It would help if the Egyptian government granted more permission to access these secret tombs but I respect their decision to preserve history.

They are also said to have water irrigation systems.

Egyptians used a well known and commonly used device called a shadoof.

You must be registered for see images

These water lifting machines showed that the Egyptians knew something about weights, fulcrum, and balance long before they built the pyramids .

You must be registered for see links

Did you know the height times the base of the pyramids equal pi? (I might have the sides wrong but some thing like that).

It's the perimeter divided by the height.

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

As an example, it would seem necessary to know in advance the quantity of stone that would need to be quarried, and this requires computing the volume of a pyramid. One of the extant mathematical papyri contains an example of such a computation, indicating that the Egyptians knew how to do this. The volume is equal to one third of the height multiplied by the area of the base. They could compute the area of the base just knowing the length of each side.

plans and other records exist indicating that at the time of Khufu's reign the Egyptians knew how to calculate volumes, areas, and angles; that they knew how to level a site and construct right angles; that they could survey and use solar and astronomical observations to orient structures; that they understood the concepts of structural load transfer and apparently had an idea of the load-bearing capacity of the materials they used; and that they recognized the need for an adequate foundation for the structure.

You must be registered for see links

Did you knwo each brick weighs 2 tons. It would be impossible for man to do that with his bare hands and even with a group.

They used multiple systems of pulleys and skids to carry the weights around.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

They could quarry them with dolomites that were used to pound away grooves in the granite. For the limestone, holes were drilled, and then wedges driven in to split the blocks off (you can see wedge marks at the quarries).
This has been demonstrated by the Mayans, Aztecs, Sumerians, and Babylonians. Different cultures demonstrating similar processes and mechanisms.

Or...you should use oxen:

You must be registered for see images

Even then, it took ~14 years to finish the Great Pyramids.

It was tested by the Japanese. So something as simple as dynamite is not a far stretch to have existed to me. Their civilizations hid their knowledge and it has not been close to being all unearthed. They are still unearthing old pyramids.

So because you don't understand how they accomplished such a feat, you attribute it to gods/prophets?
That sounds diminishing towards the level of work ethic, creativity, and engineering the stonemasons managed back then.

 

[Zlad]

I've never been religious because it's basically written theorys that nobody can confirm. And it's a weapon to create wars because it's misunderstood.

 

[Lrrrrr]

Saying what exactly?

"The funniest part about evolution is that humans, with all their intellect, can't even create a single-celled life form, yet believe randomness was able to do it."

^^ is what you said. Creating life is not as simple as you believe. Even the smallest bacteria is an incredibly complex being. Creating life is not something someone can do easily, despite all the stuff scientists are able to do now-a-days. Whether you want to believe in evolution is up to you (even though there's a good amount of proof for it) but it's silly to say that because they can't create small life forms (which is hard to do) that evolution for some reason isn't true.

 

[Dark Sonic]

The Eternal Absolute.

It's not a claim it's what we know to be truth. We believe God came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad.

You must be registered for see images

You can't just assume or believe that. This contradicts the Qur'an altogether.

 

[Naruske Izuchiah]

This quote came from The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. What do you guys think? Before you give an opinion read this quote:

"1 For thousands of years, the people who did not have the Knowledge of the person, or reality of God worshiped their own Ideas of God. He has been made like many things other than what He really is. The Christians refer to God as a "Mystery" and a "Spirit" and divide Him into thirds. One part they call the Father, another part the Son, and the third part they call the Holy Ghost; which makes the three, one. This is contrary to both nature and mathematics. The law of mathematics will not allow us to put three into one. Our nature rebels against such a belief of God being a mystery and yet the Father of a son and a Holy Ghost without a wife or without being something In reality. We wonder how can the son be human, and the father a mystery (unknown), or a spirit? Who is this Holy Ghost that is classified as being the equal of the father and the son?

2 The Christians do not believe in God as being a human being, yet they believe in Him as being the Father of all human beings. They also refer to God as He, Him, Man, King and The Ruler. They teach that God sees, hears, talks, walks, stands, sits, rides, and flies; that He grieves or sorrows; and that He is interested in the affairs of human beings. They also teach that once upon a time He made the first man like Himself in the image and likeness of Himself, but yet they believe that He, Himself, is not a man or human. They preach and prophesy of His coming and that He will be seen on the Judgment Day but is not man. They cannot tell us what He looks like, yet man is made like Him and in the image of God, and yet they still say that He is a mystery (unknown).

3 How can one teach the people to know God if He, himself, does not know God. If you try teaching the Christians that God is also a human being, they will say that you are crazy, that you do not believe in God and that you are an infidel. In the meantime, while they admit that He is a Mystery God (unknown), they teach not to make any likeness of Him; yet they adorn their walls and churches with pictures, images and statues like human beings.

4 Can God be a Mystery God and yet send prophets to represent Himself? Have the prophets been representing a God that is not known (Mystery)? They tell us that they heard Gods voice speaking to them in their own language. Can a spirit speak a language while being an immaterial something? If God is not material, what pleasure would He get out of material beings and the material universe? What is the basis of spirit? Is the spirit independent of material?

5 Actually, who is that Mystery God? We should take time and study what has and is being taught to us. Study the word and examine it, and if it be the Truth, lay hold to it. To teach people that God is a Mystery God is to teach them that God is unknown. There is no truth in such teaching. Can one teach that which he himself does not know?

6 If one teaches a thing that he himself does not know, he can be charged with lying to the people. The word "mystery," according to the English dictionaries, is something that has not been or cannot be - something beyond human comprehension. The unintelligent, or rather ones without divine knowledge, seem to delight themselves in representing the God as something mysterious Unknown.

7 Such teaching (a mystery God) that God is a mystery makes the prophets' teachings of God all false. There should be a law made and enforced upon such teachers until they have been removed from the public."

Hey man, I was wondering if I can shed some light into these really good set of questions. By no means am I some expert on theology, nor do I write this to belittle your questions. My hope is to get you to see the assertions of whether God is a mystery or Man a little more align on how a Christian may see it, at least on how I see the divinity of God (the mystery), and the form of Man (Man), the Son of Man, His son, Jesus Christ. And to be clear in some things. I don't have the power--never had really--to convert any one into Christianity, and I'm not trying to either. Oh yeah, in case it didn't occur to you, I am a non-catholic Christian (not that Catholicism itself is bad, but I digress) . Additionally I was once an atheist till 5 years ago, but that's another story for another time. Shall I start?

I'll dive right into the topics at hand, starting with explaining the idea of the Trinity which Christianity as a whole uses to explain and assert the nature of God. As a illustration I like to use the example of a family man. 1. God is Father 2. One with His son (the Son of Man, Jesus Christ), and 3. a Holy Spirit. He is all 3 of them, and all of them IS ONE, i.e God. How so? Take a married man. He's married, has a wife. He's a husband. Since my illustration is a family man then we assume he has child(ren), he's a father. Thirdly, he himself was born so he too has a father, he's also a son. Similarly how a family man is all a husband, a father, and a son, at the same time. God can, and is, Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. As for mathematics and possibilities, i like to use imaginary numbers in math, those i's, but it doesn't mean that Imaginary numbers can be applied to real life situations on this Earth. Not all laws of mathematics can be pragmatic or mundane.

We Christians refer to God as Him, a masculine pronoun, because of the slight leniency of nature of the Spirit of God. In the animal kingdom the male *** hormones are the packages, the seed sort to speak, that brings life. While mostly the female is the nurturer of said life. God IS both, a originator and nurturer. However, since He's describe as creating first then nurturing, the male attribute stuck. Masculinity brings the seed of life, while femininity nurtures it. God is describe simply more as the creator rather than the nurturer of all creation. So when He created the first man, Adam, in His likeness it wasn't meaning the actual physical form of His likeness, but rather, of His attributes. Humanity has the capacity to bring his will and ideas to life, we tend to say those things are Art or Technology, or imagination, creativity, etc, etc. The complexities of human socialization, specially language (communication), intelligence, consciousness, and depths of emotions and its nuances is unparalleled in the animal kingdom in humans. For better or worse, can you deny this? It's the attributes is what is meant by "in the image of God" He created us. And on Judgement day God sends His son, Jesus Christ, 100% God, 100% man, to judge all of humanity and recreate the Earth, the heavens, and new Jerusalem. It is in His son that God has a physical human appearance, otherwise He's Spirit. We don't really know what Jesus looks like. Sadly, the Catholic church made in image of Jesus during the renaissance period and it stuck, for better or for worse.

The idea of "god" is that God is of a higher power and understanding of everything in comparison to humans. Otherwise, we humans wouldn't call that stuff "god." It is the understanding of our own limited human brains and comprehension is where the idea of God being a mystery meets the rubber to the road. We begin to understand God's love not because of our ability to actually understand Him but because through His Holy Spirit He reveals it to us, though, because of our imperfection (due to the Fall of Man) we can't fully grasps it...until death and sin is completely eliminated and we are perfected once again in heaven, and the New Earth and new Jerusalem. Think of it that right now we are understanding and reacting to God through a foggy lens, until His returns. So it is not us who truly teaches us but rather His Spirit based on our Faith in Him.

Since it is the Spirit that teaches us in our Faith, and the Spirit IS Truth, then it teaches us wrong. Only we humans misunderstand the Spirit and we get things wrong. But the Spirit of God is eternally merciful, and patience. Will you suggest then that the Spirit, who's our Wonderful counsel be wrong?

...annnnd I gotta go. Sorry, the library is closing, lol.

Peace! Wish I could write more, need more time!!! xD

I'll finish it up later?

 

[BrillyMac]

What about lactose tolerance, atherosclerosis resistance, apolipoprotein, and the heterozygous advantage of sickle cell anemia?


Who are these modern scientists? Nothing is impossible.


One of the reasons for failure was that the Egyptians(and other civilizations) cleared the sand down to the bedrock for the pyramid. The Japanese didn't. Improper technique and tools also factor in too. They tried to recreate something that was planned years ahead.



It would help if the Egyptian government granted more permission to access these secret tombs but I respect their decision to preserve history.


Egyptians used a well known and commonly used device called a shadoof.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

It's the perimeter divided by the height.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

They used multiple systems of pulleys and skids to carry the weights around.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

They could quarry them with dolomites that were used to pound away grooves in the granite. For the limestone, holes were drilled, and then wedges driven in to split the blocks off (you can see wedge marks at the quarries).
This has been demonstrated by the Mayans, Aztecs, Sumerians, and Babylonians. Different cultures demonstrating similar processes and mechanisms.

Or...you should use oxen:

You must be registered for see images

Even then, it took ~14 years to finish the Great Pyramids.




So because you don't understand how they accomplished such a feat, you attribute it to gods/prophets?
That sounds diminishing towards the level of work ethic, creativity, and engineering the stonemasons managed back then.

Except it was not impossible for them to build. There's proof that they literally practiced how to build pyramids all over Egypt. In the modern era we can't build them like the Egyptians did because simply we can't force people to work for those longs hours required to build it. Not to mention how skilled each individual has to be to actually cut, shape, and place the rocks. You're acting as if it's some kind of miracle that they did these things, but in reality it took them hundreds upon hundreds(If not thousands) of years of generational practice and knowledge gathering in order to perfect them.

These modern scientists are the scientists of our time and civilization. They don't know much about the scientists of the old civilization. And no, that's now how the pyramids were built. If it were so easy it would not be called one of the seven wonders of the world. It's a wonder because no one knows how it was built lol. Also if either one of you are implying that slaves built the pyramids then you're both wrong. The Egyptians were a highly Mathematical civilization. I wouldn't denote them to such cheap tools and means to build the pyramids. They are too mathematical to have been built simply by thousands of years of lifting and moving objects on sleds. If it were that easy a caveman with high mathematical knowledge could do it. There had to be some type of high mathematical hydrolics system.

"The Great Pyramid of Giza was a pyramid built for King Khufu. It is the oldest and largest of the three pyramids in the Giza Necropolis or cemetery. The Great Pyramid of Giza is the oldest of the ancient wonders of the world and the last one still largely intact. For over 3800 years, the Great Pyramid of Giza was the tallest man made structure in the world. The Great Pyramid of Giza is called one of the 7 wonders of the world because scientists can’t figure out how it was built during the time of ancient Kemet.
A group of Japanese scientists have even tried to build their own pyramid with what they thought the Egyptians built theirs with. The Japanese scientists failed horribly. The work exhibited in the construction of the pyramids, especially the Great Pyramid, far surpassed miserable attempts made by the Japanese.
When the archeologists removed one of the remaining casing stones on the north side of the pyramid at its base they were shocked at what they found. None of the underlying blocks seen had been chipped, cracked, or scratched. The Japanese scientists called the pyramid perfect. One of the world’s greatest Egyptologists, Flinders Petrie, found that the faces and butting surfaces of these 16 ton blocks were cut to 1/100 of an inch of mathematical perfection. It is impossible for a bunch of “so-called” Egyptian slaves to have done this with their bare hands. Egyptian slaves building the pyramids are more than a myth, it’s a straight lie.
For thousands of years these pyramids have been existent and not one scratch was found. This shows the high math, science, and architecture our people once knew. The Great Pyramid of Giza is comprised of 2,300,000 blocks of stone. Each of these individual stone blocks weigh from 2.5b tons to 70 tons. The blocks originally covered an area of 13.11 acres. It is said that the Great Pyramid contains more stone than all churches, chapels, and cathedrals built in England since the time of Christ or Jesus. If all the stone in the pyramid were sawed into blocks one foot on an edge and these were laid end to end, they would stretch two thirds of the way around the globe at the equator. The Great Pyramid contains enough stone to construct thirty Empire State Buildings. When you take the Great Pyramids perimeter (3023.13 feet) and divide it by twice its height (480.95 feet), you get an engineer’s working approximation of the universal equation pi. The Greta Pyramid is a scale model of the hemisphere, incorporating the geographical degrees of latitude and longitude."

Yeah there's no way in hell some slaves or group of people built the pyramids doing some cheap handy work. If it were that easy we wouldn't need machines to build skyscrapers which pale in comparison to the pyramids.

Also @agent Phrank "These pyramids built by the Egyptians 4,000 to 4,500 years ago are one of the seven wonders of the world. If there were any references to any machines used in building the pyramids they may have burned in the fires of the Alexandrian Library. I believe I have given Egyptologists and Historians completely new ideas to think about. Considering the vast amount of information still available, perhaps the scholars really did not know what to look for. Perhaps the scholars will now revise their thinking on how the Egyptians built the pyramids."
This is at the end of the link you sent. Scholars still don't know how they were built. It's a was we. And this man offers that if they used machines then they burned their knowledge. I did state earlier that they buried their knowledge and technology under the sands. Also, I bet you didn't know the Greeks and whoever else went to Egypt burned the libraries when they conquered them like idiots and only got a couple of books. So they didn't Get all the knowledge and technology they could have. I believe the Egyptians had technology that surpasses technology of this time. Maybe not in every way but most ways. They hid it for a reason.

 

[Son of God]

So your reply to there being NO proof whatsoever of mutations adding information and the numerous hoaxes to support evolution is "it's just a theory" ?

You just basically admitted evolution isn't a fact. That's all I'm arguing here. And given that this theory has gaping hole in it (mutations being unable to add new info) why do you find it so absurd for me to not believe it?



It's false to me. Just as god is false to you.



No, I understand that theories don't have to be 100% fact to be accepted, they just have to be the best theory out there. And in my eyes, believing in Intelligent Design makes more sense than believing in Evolution, especially with the numerous holes the theory has and the imminence lack of proof for crucial points in the theory and the absurd dependence on luck and randomness in terms of the supposed mutations.



Above you just admitted that there has been no proof of Mutations adding information, as you called evolution a theory, yet you believe in it despite it's flaws and missing pieces. That's blind faith in and of itself.

I'm arguing that if randomness can cause one cell to be formed in a primitive earth through natural events, why are humans unable to create the same with all the equipment and intelligence they have? I don't think I need o tell you that our science labs are far more advanced than a primitive earth's surface, and that we have access to much more resources, so if even with all the advantages humans have, and yet they are unable to make life, I argue it can't be done.

And even if it is done, it'll just prove what I've been saying all along: That intelligence is needed to create life


K, I accept this .



Yes, I understand that Natural Selection has been observed. And that's all it proves: that specimens of one species are more likely to survive if they are healthier, stronger, faster, etc. But how does that at all explain the problem of mutations being unable to actually add new info, and thus, evolve simple lifeforms into more complex ones?

About the hypothesizing and theorizing bit. Is it really that absurd to theorize ID could be the cause of life? Why is ID theory always rejected without any serious consideration by non-religious scientists? It's as valid a theory as any, to propose the idea that the natural world had a supernatural cause.

Did you say that there is no evidence of information being added to genes? How far into high school biology are you?

 

[Son of God]

P.S. I am neither a mystery or a man. I'm a laid out, inconsistent piece of fiction.

 

[Phoenix110]

But the universe has too many laws. It's like it happened by design. Surely no coincidence that great can give us the laws of motion, thermodynamics, different galaxies, a sun, the planets in our solar system, the grass we see on the earth, the animals we see, and us. Nature compels you to believe in God because even if you never see him in your life, you know someone put everything here. The universe has too many mathematical principals for it to be an accident

This is exactly the same answer I would give and lots more

 

[BrillyMac]

This is exactly the same answer I would give and lots more

Thanks. That's a lot coming from a 2012 member :Sparks:

Edit: feel free to go more into detail