Topic awaiting preservation: intresting reading...would like to hear oppinions from DL and WS (Page 1 of 2)

I came accross of couple intresting readings...I am not gonna denie or aprove it, but I would like to hear oppinions from DL and WS alot thanks for your time


click
click

Yeah I'd like to see what DL and WS have to say too!!

Come on Ruski a site with the title "Human Evolution - Frauds & Mistakes"..... They are regurgitating all the tired old Creationist lines some of which have been disproved decades ago.

Before you ask for other people's opinions why don't you have a look at the excellent Fossil Hominids FAQ at Talk Origins:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

and then feel free to bring up any points you don't think are properly covered there.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I am sorry emps I really have no idea who they are...but they seem to be on creationisms side...thanks for the link!

Here you go, ruski...

quote:

---

The "Problem of Evil" is a philosophical stumbling block for many people. Empirical evidence for creation, and therefore a Creator, is overwhelming. Atheists have tried unsuccessfully to identify a mechanism by which the world could have made itself. 20th century science has proved with certainty that the world is not eternal -- the universe had a beginning. The only feasible option to explain the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, natural law, etc.) is a Transcendent Creator. DNA is a compelling example of the incredible design that permeates all life - the digital code that organizes organic material into complex organisms. The invisible language convention that interprets the DNA code is another dramatic evidence for an Intelligent Designer. It is here that an atheist, confronted with the evidence against random evolutionary theory, attacks Special Creation on philosophical grounds. One of the primary questions atheists pose is, "If God is real, and God created everything, why did He create evil?"

---

Where is the evidence? It is easy to say 'This is so'...I see no supporting evidence for this authors assertions, anywhere...and in fact, this author is lying through his teeth...

quote:

---

Atheists have tried unsuccessfully to identify a mechanism by which the world could have made itself.

---

This is just not true...current theories of the creation of the Universe do stand 'alone'. And here is the proof Guth's Grand Guess (I just knew that would come in handy...hehe). So, one can see, the author is sadly lacking in the factual area...but that should not come as a surprise...and if this is put in doubt, then the rest of his 'ideas', or 'evidences' are also put into question...especially his 'Big Bang' debunk...which, after reading Guth's Grand Guess, just shoots the authors 'dis-proof' all to hell and back...I just love it when Creationists attempt to mess with Science and lose...hehe...

And this

quote:

---

The invisible language convention that interprets the DNA code is another dramatic evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

---

is just absurd. Invisible language? What the hell is the author talking about? He then goes on to say that it is 'evidence' for an intelligent Designer...uh-huh...where is the evidence? So what does this have to do with the topic 'Problem of Evil'? Beats the hell out of me. Here is an interesting link The Buildingblocks of Life in Space

As I do not believe in Good and Evil (especially on an ultimate scale), this 'question' is not primary for me...in fact, it doesn't even exist IMHO.

To sum things up, I've seen this type of approach by Creationists for a long time now...and everytime, I've sent them packing. Now, if I can do it, then others that are far more involved in the actual areas of science as I am, could, as well. Also, this offering of 'evidence' that turns out not to be evidence, and the 'facts' that turn out not to be facts, are pretty normal for the Creationists that try to 'disprove' either Evolution, or Science...

I could continue with this...and take every single point apart, but I don't have to - I already have, in threads of yore. Just do a search of the Phil section - search terms : God, Big Bang, Evolution, etc...

And after reading the whole thing (and clawing my way through all those Bible references...blah), I came across this

quote:

---

Original Sin: Why Creation and Evolution Cannot Coexist in Christianity
“Original Sin” is one of the core theological reasons that a Christian cannot embrace the theory of evolution. Regardless of the scientific issues that now plague the evolutionary belief system, the whole message of Christianity starts with mankind’s fall from paradise into death through Adam’s sin. With evolution, we envision millions and millions of years of death, decay and disease before Adam even came on the scene. However, this picture is not consistent with the “very good” earth created by God. More importantly, as one can thoroughly investigate, death before sin is theologically inconsistent with the rest of Christian doctrine.

---

Hoo-boy. Would love to hear what Bugs has to say on this one...it would appear that the author is a hard-core creationist...and that brings up the time-line thingie...which just doesn't stand up under scrutiney. But I would love to hear what Bugs thinks on this quote...

Oh good grief, man! This

quote:

---

Scientists have yet to observe a beneficial mutation.

---

is just so wrong...it gags me. How about those Moths in England, then, hmmm? Seems that their mutation was helpful...and then things changed, and it wasn't helpful anymore...and so it goes...and I think that wings were a pretty beneficial evolutionary thing...(no, I'm not digging that thread up here...go search for it - four wing intermediatary fossil found). The guy is clearly off his rocker. And as for the 'Absolute Truth'...that's been debated and soundly spanked here in the Asylum, as well...

Hehe...and then, at the end...the author gives you a choice - to become a christian or not...click yes or no. But both lead to the Become a christian today! sales line...and the list of things to do, after deciding to become a christian...hehe...here it is :

Get baptized as a public statement of your new faith in Christ.
Tell someone else about your new faith in Christ.
Spend time with God each day. It does not have to be a long period of time. Just develop the daily habit of praying to Him and reading His Word. Ask God to increase your faith and your understanding of the Bible.
Seek fellowship with other Christians. Develop a group of Christian friends to answer your questions and support you.
Find a local church where you can worship God.

In other words, get indoctrinated, and find a group to help you stay that way...*shrugs*

Whatever.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-22-2003).]

quote:

---

The only feasible option to explain the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, natural law, etc.) is a Transcendent Creator.

---

And with that line, I read no further.

That mindset is the epitomy of all ignorance IMO, and puts us right back to ancient man who feared the thunder and sacrificed virgins to appease the gods.

That line says "we don't know, so god did it".

No thanks...

You mean we're not supposed to sacrifice virgins to the thundergods anymore?

Perhaps the universe was born, just like humans are born, but not from a human, from a much bigger universe.


-->Ozone Quotes<--

Thanks alot DL and WS! I am relieved

All this stuff is purely scary and saddens me. Scientists make researches, discover many things and a few religious extremist still try to impose to the world their vision of evolution. There is a problem of accepting the things science proved, like in the Midle ages, and that is really annoying me. Hopefully he won't try to burn me alive for what I will say.

About evolution, I just wanted to notify you a simple fact : this person is trying to convince us wih a false vision of evolution. The theory of evolution is not "humans comes from the apes". A lot of people are also mistaken in this theory. They sometimes ask why, if we comes from the apes, there are still apes. Ow they could also ask why there are still parents since children come from parents. All these persons have a false vision of this theory. The theory of evolution is not this at all. The theory of evolution is merely stating that humans and apes have common ancestor.

About the Big Bang, I think DL made a good point. This autor also seems to ignore other things about the Big-Bang. When he ask "Where did everything come from? Can nothing explode?", I have the envy to slap him. Before the Big Bang (a few picoseconds), many scientists think there were material and anti-material, in equal proportions. I just recall you all our universe is made of material, at 100% (ok the scientists create a few entimaterial nowadays, but the quantity is really tiny and don't last). So, just before the Big-Bang, the scientists said an atom of antimaterial encountered one of material. And, as the two are exactly opposite they react in a powerful explosion. Normally, as they are 50% of each, the result would have been neutral. But somehow the material took the advantages on anti-material and here is our universe.

The dinosaur exctiction theory is also heavily supported by almost all the scientists. The original theory is that a meteor crashed on Earth 65 millions years ago. All the fossiles in the world are older than that. And layer of dust this explosion let on the world is visible everywhere in the world. About the bones and the footprints, the problem is just a weather problem. A dinosaur can die somewhere, the dust can recovers it for millions of year, and then after an erosion discover its bones. A human has just to die at that moment. It is exactly the same for the footprints.

The theory on DNA also made me want to puke. Scientists have proven that as we all have the same genetic type we came from a single ancestor. This ancestor came itself from a less evolved form of life... And so on towards the beginning of life. Put some water, some oxygen, some natural elements, and the millions of year create a single cell organism. Now with the genetic mutations it evolves... until the creation of DNA. It was just at the beginning another way to code an simple organism, like for example is a mutation transformed "10" into "2". The evolution and mutations made the rest. Claiming that "such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer" is a no-no, a theory absolutely not proved.

Haha humanism "We are the result of a blind and random process that does not necessitate any kind of meaning." Why do I sense a frustation of him thinking he was not created intentionally by the laws of the universe ? I'm sorry, but I have not these types of pretention. "Without God, we lose any transcendent purpose for the universe in which we live. Without God, we lose any transcendent purpose to give meaning to our individual lives" Yes that was it. This man can't stand the fact to be not designed in a particular purpose. Personally, not being a tool doesn't bother me. I'm sorry about my lack of knowledge about Christianity, but what purpose is supposed to give us God ? To pray ?

Does God exists ? That's an interesting question. Not the ultimate question as it was suggested, but an interesting question though.

"Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions, such as numbers, formulas and properties.
Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that is in it."
Design. God provides the best explanation for the complex order in cosmological and biological entities.
Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral/ethical values in the world."

God is not the best explanation for these laws and facts we still don't understand, God is the easiest one. I'm sorry, but in the day to day life do you choose the solution of a problem by it's simplicity, or by it's accuracy ?

On all these problems, chrisitanity have simple answers to propose. Of course it's interesting, that would simplify everything... But sorry, I can't really agree with these theories. The more the science progress, the more we discover the real (in my opinion) theories, and accepting half-truths half-lies is not my cup of tea. I prefer saying I don't know, this fact still has to be discovered than inventing a theory that would give an easy.

PS : I'm sorry for all the Christians here if I shocked you, if I denied your religion or anything else. You are absolutely free to practise your religion and I have nothing against it. It's just I can't stand articles twisting the truth. I really meant no offense. No offense Bugimus, that was just my point of view on the subject.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

very cool Moon shadow, I am not offended in fact I am relieved

Just out of curiosity, why are you relieved?

^ that's what I am wondering as well.

if your beliefs (whatever they may be) are unstable enough to be swayed by such tripe - or by our reactions to it - then you need to take some serious time to figure out what it is you believe....

I'm also interested in that

I am curious about people's motivation when they just throw in a link and ask for other people's thoughts without first even attempting to sketch out there own. Are they:

1. Unsure of what they think on the issue - if so just say so its not a crime. However, I'd still be interested to hear your views on things.

2. Firm believers in this but think it will be shot down in flames so they don't want to be linked with it?

Just a thought but the writings of some nutty group 'out there' while interesting is often not as interesting as people's views on the subject

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

God - A brief summary of the key arguments:

Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions, such as numbers, formulas and properties

---

yikes! numbers? there must be a god!



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

... ancient man who feared the thunder and sacrificed virgins to appease the gods.

-- DL-44

---

Ah shit. You mean all this time, Jupiter & the gang haven't been heeding my calls?

*disassembles sacrificial platform*

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 03-24-2004).]

well why I am revieled....hmm its not big deal....

lets see, well its probably that I am finally seeing the facts...

I was born a catholic and it seems I have been blind for long time! well as in russia education in public schools is not that great, I was basicly a dumbass and I didnt care a bit... when I migrated my grades moved to only A and B...I dunno but I guess I had no chose but study. I became very intrested in physics and since in USA science is so greatly explored and though in school..it seems my school never even metioned anything about Darwin's theory about which I knew very little and considered to be true....

latly I have been looking for more info on evolution and all that stuff , so I came across that article, and since they spoke so negativly about all evolution stuff it kind of saddened me....but well now I have heard from you guys and I see that I wasnt all that wrong...

[edit]and DL I really dont have any beliefes latly, I simply accept the facts that are only proven and explained[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 04-23-2003).]

Guth's theory didn't really PROVE the big bang, or evolution. it was like an addition. Plus, seeings how his theory is based on Quantum science his theory is only a possibility. because as he states himself, "...Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system...."

I enjoyed the read, i read it a long long long time ago from a post long long long ago. But ummm not exactly proving anything, i actually shared the article with my astrology teacher (because a lot of his theory is based on cosmology) and my phsysics teacher.. both agreed that it was nice in theory, but... proven ? no.

I seriously have no clue why this topic keeps getting brought up.. its never going to stop, and we're never going to find out the real answer. There will always be doubts, misconceptions, proposed theories and arguments

But, alas - to each his own - you guys have at it with your religious/scientific discussions.....

*walks back to photoshop*
* turns on the trance*

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

[This message has been edited by Sanzen (edited 04-23-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Sanzen (edited 04-23-2003).]

quote:

---

and we're never going to find out the real answer.

---

how do you know? can you prove it?

I am sure someday we will but not anytime soon

we're never going to know... its just something that should really be common sense

there just aren't enough facts .. especially fossil remains, and what not remaining to predate anything nearly far enough back to make evolutionary predictions.... only speculation is left

and from a creationist point of view..... you just have to wait until you die lol

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

Ahhh...but the Theory of Relativity was also only a theory...but a lot of hard evidence has been found (now that our technology is better) to support it.
As for Guth's Grand Guess, there is evidence that supports it, as well...we are just in the beginning phases though...

However, it is just a theory, true...but the site that ruski posted said there were no explanations of how something could start from nothing...and that is wrong. There is.

And that is basically the difference between Science and Theism...Theism just needs to be put in doubt (based on Faith)...Science though, can (and should be) put in doubt...it is more based on facts, and observational evidence...

This does not mean that the idea of a Creator has been proven (or not proven) to exist...far from it. It does mean, however, that the theory of Creationism doesn't stand up to scrutiney...when using the Scientific method, whereas if I use the Theist method on Science, it does (I just need to have Faith).

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-23-2003).]

quote:

---

Ahhh...but the Theory of Relativity was also only a theory...but a lot of hard evidence has been found (now that our technology is better) to support it.

---

Exactly. Our scientist theories, that I merely exposed, are just.. the bases for further theories. For example, the gravitation law of Newton. This was discovered a few centuries ago. And it works ! Yes it works ! But this is not the good theory ! Einstein proved that the gravitation was not a force that was exercised between two objects, but rather a deformation of the space-time continuum. And, at least in France, we are still taught that it is a force. Our theories are not false, neither they are true, they are correct, but they are not exactly accurate. With time we will discover the 'right' laws, or at least better ones. The religious view expressed in this article can be considered also like that. Correct theories, I mean they work... But they are not really accurate. And now that we discovered new proves, maintaining them is... pointless.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

Well, the big difference i see is, what science can't explain, the scientists *generally* tend to leave unexplained, or will perhaps create theories to help explain. And they tend to state outright for you that they are just theories.

On the other hand, people who make the sites that ruski posted automatically fill in all the blanks with "god" and form a strict belief system that they base everything in their lives (and alleged afterlives) on with blind faith, and attempt to sucker and scare others into the same belief system.

How that type of thought can do anything other than scare the hell out of a person is beyond me...

.

Ruski - understandable.

DL44
Faith is not about fear of hell. If thats all that compels a person to be good, they are missing the boat. Its about love. Its hard to love a God you can't see. God asks that you love your neighbor which is the greatest commandment, because God lives in your neighbor. This is how you love him, which I am sure you are already doing. So you don't fear hell if you love. I am sure you love your children, spouse, mother, father, sister, brother, and friends. So your on the right track even if you don't know it.

Ruski:

quote:

---

latly I have been looking for more info on evolution and all that stuff , so I came across that article, and since they spoke so negativly about all evolution stuff it kind of saddened me....but well now I have heard from you guys and I see that I wasnt all that wrong...

---

If you are looking for good material on human evolution then the Fossil Hominids FAQ has a list of links. This is an excellent (and slick) introduction:
www.becominghuman.org

If you are looking for broader evolutionary things then I'm sure somewhere in the Talk Origins site you'll find links to all sort of Palaeontology sites. I would recommend you grab a few books (if only from the library) Richard Dawkins and Steven J. Gould do a good job of exploring the issues - if you want more recommendations then ask away.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Jade, why should I love something that may not exist? My wife exists, so does my daughter...and my sisters and my mother.

I have absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, that god exists. So why should I try to love something that may not exist?

Well, Jesus said that if I do this, then I avoid going to hell...so, shouldn't I play it safe? What could it hurt? If there is no god, then it doesn't matter...but if there is one, then...

Personally, I find this approach to be childish...'Be good, or else!'...right, I grew up awhile ago. Present god differently (as a supreme being, not a vengeful, rules monger, but one really consisting of love), and the notion of hell, and evil, just don't make sense.

You see, I don't understand why god would have to punish anyone...we all die, eventually (well, for the present, anyway ). So, we all go into an afterlife...there is presently no escape from this. So, it would know this, and even murders (and those murdered) are going to the afterlife, as well. So, why should god be angry, or vengeful? Everyone is going to find out that it exists, right? Well, allow one at that point to excercise his/her free will...

And why did god send Jesus (his son) once? Why not just keep a permanent Christ here on Earth? Then people could utilize their free will to follow him or not. In fact, god supposedly showed the Hebrews his power, again and again, but since oh, 2000+ years (give or take a bit), nothing...why is that? That makes no sense, at all.

Now, I know what the standard answer is to questions like these...'God works in mysterious ways' or 'One cannot understand God'...yeah, blah blah. But apparently, after we are dead, we can? See the impossibility here? One can't prove it, until one is dead...and then you aren't coming back...at least, not conciously.

And god has a plan, right? Then why does it let itself be influenced by prayers? Certainly, answering prayers interferes with the plan. And apparently, Angels also have free will...so wouldn't they also have an effect on this 'plan'?

The more and more one goes into it, the harder it is to maintain any amount of credibility...often, the Bible is an attack/defence point...but we already know that it was written by men...so who really cares? Many religious books were written by men. Some may support the point 'Yeah, but which one makes more sense?' I say to those, then turn your intelligence towards Science...for it makes much more sense. It gives you tools to decide with...to measure, to observe...and to repeat that to others. But it doesn't say that you must believe in the findings...no, it says 'if you can prove the findings wrong, then do so'.

However, those who believe, will probably go on believing anyway...*shrugs*

Web,

What force inside of you compels you to love your wife and children, mother, father, etc. Where does this emotion originate from in you? Wouldn't you die in your wife's or childs place if the circumstance arose where it be you instead of them. Why?
And if you did die for them, wouldn't it be for love. Wouldn't you be doing what Jesus did.

If your wife should die B-4 you, will you always love her even after her death? Do you think in death, her love for you will die because she is no longer living? Where does all the love she had for you go?



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-23-2003).]

Umm..jade, to me Jesus seems just like another Ghandi, yup thats right!

good man, good teacher, sacrificed his life for his own people....they both did the samething...


umm no I wouldnt die for no one...I dont think I can express my love that way, why?

because its not really gonna make someone happy you know, instead they will suffer more...which can even lead to nervouse breakdown and a person might go mad


[edit]great link emps[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 04-23-2003).]

You are arguing intangibles again, jade.

I love those that I love because it is the culmination of all of my feelings towards them. My being exists and intertwines with those that I open myself to. I do not love them because Jesus told me to. I do not gauge any of my actions in that way. My life revolves around those I love, if my actions fall into your acceptable lines of following Jesus, oh well. That doesn't mean that's why I'm doing it. I'm not subconsciously following Jesus. That wouldn't count anyway. Only active acceptence and faith mean anything in religious thought. Blanket statements such as yours are what makes christianity hover as it has for 2000+ years. All "good" things do not necessarily stem from God. All "evil" things do not necessarily stem from God. You can't take every occurance of anything and attribute it to God, that removes every iota of free will that we , as humans, are supposed to have. If everything I do that is good is subconsciously following God's plan, then all of my conscious actions are the bad ones? I don't like the undertones of control, of preprogramming that are in such thoughts.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

quote:

---

So your on the right track even if you don't know it.

---

While I do sincerely appreciate your concern Jade, I *know* that I am on the right track. And it has nothing to do with god or jesus.

I know all about being a good person, I know all about love, I know all about charity and humility. I know these thing because all of these things are within each and everyone of us regardless of 'faith' or biblical teachings or papal edicts. I also know all about anger, lust, greed, pain, suffering. I know about these things because they are also inside us all.

Again you assume that because I know that there is no god I am somehow lost or lacking. You assume that your need for a magical answer means that I have the same need. It is this arrogance and presumption that makes evangelism fail. You talk of how humble you are, and yet you show quite the opposite in the assumptions you make.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-23-2003).]

GD

Web was asking why God didn't send Jesus again, and I was expressing Jesus is here, in each one of us. Written in our hearts in how we love people, even if we do not want to acknowledge who he was or is. So why do we have to see him in person.?

You seem to accept love as just is, but can't define love as where it originates from in you. Feelings? You want it, can't live without it and ask or yearn to receive it back. Its in all us humans to yearn love and feel accepted. Why? Were we born that way? Martital love, parental love, & friendship love. There is love all over you. To me, that is God all over you.


DL44
I never assumed your lost or I better that you. Contrary to your belief of me, I think you could enter the gates of heaven before if at all I do. All I was saying is if you love without involvement in an organized religion in my opionion I think your judgements in your life will take you to the right paths being that love will see you through anything.

And talk to me about arrogance, you act as if you have some secrets of superior intellect against believers. Like you know something they don't. Like don't they get it? Look whos looking down at others.

quote:

---

Hoo-boy. Would love to hear what Bugs has to say on this one...

---

WS, I would love to know what he thinks too

I read the main page and here are my thoughts in a nutshell. One does not need to disprove human evolution in order to believe God exists. What bothers me the most about the human evolution page is that it tried to discredit the theory of evolution based on scientific means but ultimately the only alternative given is faith in the Bible.

The best, and only intellectually honest, way to discredit evolution is to come up with a better scientific theory that matches the data more accurately. This has yet to be achieved. Until such time as a better theory arises, we need to stick with evolution with all of its flaws.

I clicked a bit further and noticed that they are saying that DNA Double Helix alone defeats the theory of evolution. I simply cannot agree with this. It does no such thing. But it is important to stipulate that my understanding of evolution does NOT exclude God from the equation. If that is the case then it falls on its face flat because no scientific evidence can disprove the existence of God. Science cannot and should not overstep its boundaries no more than theology should.

Bottom line: Science and Religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There is no need for this contention between them.


I should add that this one link is connected to several other sites. They cover *many* topics and several of them I agree with quite a bit. Others, like the one above I part company on. I would not totally dismiss these sites as useless because there is a good deal of decent information there. I actually liked the way they summarized the main points supporting God's existence.

[edit]

MS, I forgot to address you. I was not offended in the least by your words, no problem. I understand that you see Xianity's answers as being simplistic. I really do understand how you could see it that way but I don't. The ultimate truth is that God is behind all of the complexity that science and our brains will allow us to explore and understand. The problem is that many Xians don't want to be bothered by facts and figures and they do want the simple way out. That sucks and I fight that tendency when I interact with Xians. When I am with you, I have to point out the other side of the coin. Just because God created all of this does not mean that answers to how it all works can be glossed over or are simplistic. I take a holistic approach to science and religion. As I said above, I don't see any reason to view them as mutually exclusive.

[/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-23-2003).]

Amen to Bugs
Liked your last paragraph especially.
The Catholics could sure use you.

well I heard it many times but....

I do hope things aren't going to turn into something closer to baseball or basketball:

quote:

---

The Catholics could sure use you.

---

If so we agnostics would love to have you on our team and we'll double any offer the Fenians make and we promise to cut down on the world weary cynicism

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Oh, why not.

We could always use another voice
to show the road that leads to Rome.




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-24-2003).]

rome?

what for?

man, isnt Jesus enough for you? I think Bugs would most likely point people to the road of Jesus not Rome....

I think thats true purpose of christianity.....you dont need popes....and why is pope in rome in first place? the holy land is in israel, where Jesus was born, so why rome?

WS: the fact that its a theory wasn't my point, things accepted as fact are almost always originated as hypothetical/theoretical situations. what i'm saying is that his theory is based on quantum science... therefor his thoery is only a probability... quantum science is a bit quirky.. its kinda like astrology where they kinda make up things that could happen to anything.... and give it a percentage as to how often it happens...
so even if they prove that it could have been that... it still might have not been...


"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

well I think its better than having faith into unknown....

theory=guess supported by facts

quote:

---

to show the road that leads to Rome

---

which seems to go against what jesus taught to a very great extent...

Ruski,

Rome is where Peter ended up and was maryterd,
so I believe Constantine wanted to build a church
around where he was buried. The vatican is built
over catacombs.

Who knows why Rome and not the Holy Land. Maybe
in the vatican there is some kind of mystical field
where the human can cross over and meet the divine.


You never know. It has lots of closed secret doors.