What if...

[Willum]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against creationism, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about religious conspiracies.
In fact it has now become common place for people to mis-represent history itself on Wikipedia and other mediums.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing to show religion is manufactured and fossils are real?

For example
Remember the St John hoax - the one that was said Saint John's bones were in two different churches?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all, but that the two skeletons were from when St John was an old man, and the other was from when he was a young man.

That is quite interesting.

The skeletons aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of the Bibles picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?
Quote:

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are Noah stuffing two animals of every kind into an Ark 50 sizes too small, and Jesus petting tyrannosaurs.
[Noah]

[Jesus]

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that stories can be faked, we must accept the fact that whatever rich literate who wrote the Bible in Greek, and other religions could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather; Does this not place religionists in the same position as the scientists they claim are believing in theories?

Consider:
Scientists accept the facts, as what is repeatably demonstrated.
Here are just a few facts about the Science.
It is an iterative process, where the truth if it contradicts theory, trumps the theory.
It has unestimated annual sales of 100 trillions copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, except during the Dark Ages (nuff said).

Archaeological findings of science before the Bible was far more advanced than Christendom after the Dark Ages, and had already lain down the the Theory of Evolution!

The evidence is there however, that the modern science was information religionists willfully destroyed because it conflicted religious doctrine.

Religionists call the theories fables - as if by being a theory, that makes it much less respectable than the religious model that only has one non-verifiable source as its reference.
Maybe one of the reasons that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - is because it is impossible.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the model of Judeo-Christianity, where all they have to go by, is what religionists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the miracles.
Any data they give you on miracles, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed rainbows over Arks and dinosaurs, which could have been edited.

So Judeo-Christians are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing in science?

And what if the folks who penned the Bible, who did not leave their names or citations, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 19 by Willum]



[center]

When measuring reality, we have to round off numbers[/center]

So, then we could disprove the creationist model by say using 1 + 1 = 5, instead of four?

No.

Do units matter? Or accuracy?

I will leave you to decide.

Would meters be different than kilometers or ergs?

I think most people agree that meters are smaller than kilometers.
And that we have to round numbers off.

Stating that "1+1= 4" relates to how we round off numbers.

You seem to be missing the point.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 18 by Blastcat]
So, then we could disprove the creationist model by say using 1 + 1 = 5, instead of four?

If you let me add 0 to both sides of the equation

1 + 1 + 0 = 5 + 0

w = 0.999999
x = 1.999999
y = 1.999999
// left side of equation
a = x + y + w
// right side of equation (left side plus 0)
b = a + w

printf ("%d + %d + %d = %d + %d\n", trunc(x), trunc(y), trunc(w), trunc(b), trunc(w))
printf ("%d = %d\n", ceil(a), trunc(b))

gives

1 + 1 + 0 = 5 + 0
5 = 5

It's fun interpreting values however I want. I can make my own truth! Praise the math.h c library functions. All hail!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

I've got to disagree. Zero must be zero + or -. To round it off, to me at least, would mean zero. But indeed we aren't adding three numbers, but two.

And indeed, what would prevent every number from equaling every other number, by adding enough zeros?

Oh, wait, I guess that is the point.