Thought for the Day

0

I got something photographed today which I felt to be interesting. It was posted by a church or religious organization on the billboard. Interesting as it may be, oddly seems to be a more secularized message.

None of the normal patent(TM) evangelical "absolute truth" undertones.

"There are no absolute answers to life - just Revelations."
"A path without obstacles probably leads nowhere."
I agree on both accounts.

My Agnostic Friend: The first billboard implies that revelation does not contain absolute answers.

Personal truths, perhaps, which are not patent absolute truths.

ehow.com › Mental Health
The Psychology of Personal Revelations. Throughout her life, an individual has the potential to have one or more life-changing events

.../personal-revelation-the-teachings-and-examples-of-t...
Personal revelation is the way we know for ourselves the most important truths of our existence.

My Agnostic Friend: Very moderate of them to admit that.

My other Agnostic friend says I'm not a Christian. I say I am. He said I'm agnostic. =) I don't think so.

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 12:01 am
Contents :
All agnostics seem extraordinarily mellowed out. =)

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 12:02 am
Contents :
Don't have to be all uptight and always think we're right about everything.

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 12:09 am
Contents :
Lol... But thing is, agnostics often are..

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 12:10 am
Contents :
Because we can see things from all different angles. Not just one angle that backs up our life and other beliefs......

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 12:19 am
Contents :
Ok... So does that make me agnostic?? Cos i was a real true ATHEIST for abt five seconds when i realized the bible was a book of myths invented by men..
And where do belief in god come from? Bible. So, god is a myth. I was in it... Atheist mind, y know? But thought, 'nah... Somethings out there. Not sure what... But something.' and that was 1990s and seen n tried every belief... And never found any 'absolute truth'. Agnostics are my favorite people... just are... I dont ask why.

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 12:22 am
Contents :
Well, sounds like U are, but think about it too much. I think most of us know we'll not get the answers, so why bother discussing it or argueing it with other people. Not worth the waste of my time, and most likely not going to change their minds anyway.....

---

From: My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 01:26 am
U have to believe all that bs bible **** to be a christian. The teachings and morals are the same things that have been handed down through all religions and many cultures. To believe them alone does not make U christian....

From : Me
Date : 07/15/2012 01:34 am
Contents :
I think it does. :) ... A wannabe christian. I TRY to b nice and patient and then something happens and i mess up and say things i regret later.... But u've gracefully forgiven me. Christians are seldom forgiving 7x70... As jesus instructed to be. Noooo, many set around gossipping and slandering the innocent. Theyre not christian... U say they are... They say they are, but jesus says 'u will know my people by their fruits'... And i say, those people are christian, in name only.

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 01:37 am
Contents :
Well look at my fruit; does that make me christian? If there is a heaven will I not get in because I don't accept christianity?

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 01:45 am
Contents :
Revelation states there is a resurrection of the dead, and all 'judged according to their works'. Note: it doesnt say 'according to one's creed'. Theists do that. A wise God would not and yes, i think any loving, righteous god would see u have love in your heart and the right priorities... Whilst some evangelists and priests are molesting kids. JESUS SAYS 'many will say Lord, we prophsied in ur name,' and told, 'Depart, i know u not.'

From: My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 01:47 am
Contents :
Well the vast majority (pretty much all) say I wouldn't get into heaven. Further proof that Ur not christian. :-p

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 01:53 am
Contents :
I am a christian and if many other 'christians' had their way, theyd reinstate the inquisition n theyd burn me at the stake for heresy and you n my buddy for apostasy. Jesus was also falsely accused, beaten and crucified by the same bunch of religious cronies... So ur in good company. The pious, self-righteous religious leaders murdered jesus, not the 'sinners' and simpletons of his day.

---

"Revelation states there is a resurrection of the dead, and all 'judged according to their works'. Note: it doesnt say 'according to one's creed'."

My Agnostic Friend: Exactly.

In fact, according to biblical scholars the book of Revelation appears to have been composed by a Judaizing Christian who agreed more with Matthew and his idea of the sheep and goats being judged by their "works," than with Paul's view that "faith" is what "saves." In fact, biblical scholar Elaine Pagels suggest that the author of Revelation was trying to correct the erroneous view as he saw it in churches of the Pauline idea that "faith" is what "saves."

Below are summations of Elaine Pagels's new book, Revelation:

Pagels emphasizes that the Book of Revelation was written at a particular time and place: a small island off the coast of Turkey, probably around 90 C.E. after the Romans had burned down the Great Temple and left Jerusalem in ruins. “We begin to understand what he wrote,” she says, “only when we see that his book is wartime literature.” In other words, much of the fiery destruction portrayed early in John’s narrative is not so much prophetic as historical, a florid depiction of the incomprehensible horrors that had left Jews stunned, scattered and frightened. In the wake of Rome’s brutal repression and the flourishing of its empire, John wrote cryptic “anti-Roman propaganda that drew its imagery from Israel’s prophetic traditions.” His “Revelation,” then, was a way of acknowledging recent defeats while knitting them neatly into a narrative of future victory.

More provocatively, Pagels claims that John “sees himself as a Jew who acknowledges Jesus as Israel’s messiah — not someone who has converted to a new ‘religion.’?” That distinction is significant, because it allows her to argue that while John was portraying Rome as the beast, he was also warning Jewish followers of Jesus against associating with gentile followers of Jesus inspired by “that maverick called Paul of Tarsus [who] came out of nowhere and began to preach a ‘gospel’ quite different.” In this interpretation, the Book of Revelation was part of an early power struggle among Jesus’s believers, an internecine conflict defined by stark terms of good and evil, faithfulness and apostasy, salvation and damnation. . . .

In the chapters that follow, Pagels goes on to demonstrate how — and how thoroughly — John lost the battle of interpretation over the story he left behind. As his “Revelation” became the culmination of Christian eschatology, his Jewish allusions were appropriated by a new sect that colonized the Hebrew Bible as the “Old” Testament, subordinated Israeli prophets to Christian bishops, and recast Jews as unbelievers set for hell.

Or this review. . .

We may imagine John, Pagels suggests, as an old Jew who had lived through the Jewish war with Rome, during which Jerusalem was decimated and the Temple destroyed in the year 70. He may have seen the thousands of Jews killed and thousands of others carried to Rome as slaves. Bitter about the dominating imperial power, he may have wandered through Syria and Asia Minor, along the way meeting other followers of the crucified prophet Jesus, other “cells” of worshipers of the Jewish Messiah who was killed and mysteriously raised from the dead.

But when he gets to western Asia Minor, he comes across many gentile Christians, quite possibly in churches founded by the now dead Apostle Paul. Unlike John, they seem to be relatively well off. They usually get along fine with their non-Christian neighbors. They may be prospering from the Pax Romana, the “peace” sustained by Roman domination. They are marrying and having children, running their small businesses, ignoring the statues, temples and worship of other gods that surround them.

For John, this Christian toleration of Rome and its idols is offensive. This is not a benign governmental power. It is the Whore of Babylon, arrogantly destroying the earth. John writes (in this theory) to warn the churches, and he relates his vision to provoke alarm at the Evil Empire. That vision predicts the destruction of Rome by angelic armies, followed by the salvation of faithful disciples of the bloody, horned warrior-lamb Jesus. Those who resist will, in the end, be rewarded.

Or this one. . .

What’s more original to Pagels’s book is the view that Revelation is essentially an anti-Christian polemic. That is, it was written by an expatriate follower of Jesus who wanted the movement to remain within an entirely Jewish context, as opposed to the “Christianity” just then being invented by St. Paul, who welcomed uncircumcised and trayf-eating [forbidden-food-eating] Gentiles into the sect. At a time when no one quite called himself “Christian,” in the modern sense, John is prophesying what would happen if people did. That’s the forward-looking worry in the book. “In retrospect, we can see that John stood on the cusp of an enormous change—one that eventually would transform the entire movement from a Jewish messianic sect into ‘Christianity,’ a new religion flooded with Gentiles,” Pagels writes. “But since this had not yet happened—not, at least, among the groups John addressed in Asia Minor—he took his stand as a Jewish prophet charged to keep God’s people holy, unpolluted by Roman culture. So, John says, Jesus twice warns his followers in Asia Minor to beware of ‘blasphemers’ among them, ‘who say they are Jews, and are not.’ They are, he says, a ‘synagogue of Satan.’ ” Balaam and Jezebel, named as satanic prophets in Revelation, are, in this view, caricatures of “Pauline” Christians, who blithely violated Jewish food and sexual laws while still claiming to be followers of the good rabbi Yeshua. Jezebel, in particular—the name that John assigns her is that of an infamous Canaanite queen, but she’s seen preaching in the nearby town of Thyatira—suggests the women evangelists who were central to Paul’s version of the movement and anathema to a pious Jew like John. She is the original shiksa goddess. (“When John accuses ‘Balaam’ and ‘Jezebel’ of inducing people to ‘eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication,’ he might have in mind anything from tolerating people who engage in incest to Jews who become sexually involved with Gentiles or, worse, who marry them,” Pagels notes.) The scarlet whores and mad beasts in Revelation are the Gentile followers of Paul—and so, in a neat irony, the spiritual ancestors of today’s Protestant evangelicals.

Pagels shows persuasively that the Jew/non-Jew argument over the future of the Jesus movement, the real subject of Revelation, was much fiercer than later Christianity wanted to admit. The first-century Jesus movement was torn apart between Paul’s mission to the Gentiles—who were allowed to follow Jesus without being circumcised or eating kosher—and the more strictly Jewish movement tended by Jesus’ brothers in Jerusalem. The Jesus family was still free to run a storefront synagogue in Jerusalem devoted to his cult, and still saw the Jesus or “Yeshua” movement within the structure of dissenting Judaisms, all of which suggests the real tone of the movement in those first-century years—something like the gingerly, ambiguous, now-he-is, now-he-isn’t messianic claims of the Lubavitchers’ Menachem Schneerson movement, in Brooklyn. “On one side are movement officials who say the promotion of Judaism throughout the world is the heart of continuing Schneerson’s work,” the Washington Post reported several years ago. “On the other are the messianists, whose passion is preparing the world for the coming of Schneerson himself. They are two distinct missions from within one movement—each in the name of the same man.” Apparently, when you have made up your mind to believe that your rabbi is God, neither death nor disappearance will discourage you. His presence is proof; his non-presence is proof; and non-presence can be conjured into presence by wishing it to be so. (“At recent Sabbath services, an older woman along the front row of the women’s section smiled and pointed to the chair. ‘He is Moshiach,’ she said, using the Hebrew word for messiah. ‘We can’t see him with our eyes, but that doesn’t mean he’s not here. He is.”) The two approaches—the Pauline, which says he’s already here in our visions; the “Johannine,” which says he’ll come back if we stay true to our practice—seem to be the pillars of any messianic movement.

Thanks for that extensive input. But I believe works and faith are equally important.

Through Faith in Jesus, one gains access to God's Holy Spirit. Certainly, God was never lost, and even the unbeliever is known to God, and perhaps the unbeliever finds personal revelation to lead them to faith. Through the Holy Spirit, a person's life becomes transformed, and you will know the people of God, by their works. Does God work through Agnostics? Why not? If God busies himself with counting the hairs on a man's head, or feeding ravens, why not use an Agnostic to his greater purpose?

That's as simple and as complicated as I can put it.

The spirit of God can transform (a.k.a., "Save") a man or woman who is, in spiritual terms, condemned.

Likewise, there are many who call themselves Christian, but do not bear the fruits of the spirit, and Jesus said of HIS PEOPLE, "You will know them by their fruits," (or by the same token, their "works"),

James 2:18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
Good works are good fruit, like grapes and figs, pleasing to God and profitable to men.
By the fruits of their persons, their words and actions, and the course of their conversation. If you would know whether they be right or not, observe how they live; their works will testify for them or against them.
http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/7-16.htm

But of those others in the end they will come and say, "But Lord!" and they will be told "Depart, I know you not."

---

Two thoughts.

#1 When Abraham spoke to God and asked, if ten righteous were found in Sodom would God spare the people therein... God says he will spare the city if ten righteous souls are found. Then Abraham questions, if five righteous were found in Sodom? God says if five righteous are found, he will spare the city. Then Abraham tests the Lord's heart and mind, and yes, if one righteous were found in Sodom, again, God would spare the city.

One must ask themself according to that account, if God searches the heart and mind and judges, long before the time of Christianity, also, needless to add, long before even the time of the law of Moses. Then it must not be according to one's creed, but by works, by the goodness of the soul, even in the heart and mind of an Agnostic that God judges.

#2 I attended a funeral of a man, who was by all accounts, by many in the community deemed "condemned" "unchristian" a "sinner," "unsaved". Yet, the preacher was in a position that he had to find something good to say at the funeral for sake of the family. He reminded the people that this man's life, even now, deceased, that all his works were not yet fulfilled. The influence, the effect his life had had upon others was yet to be known. Therefore, not to judge. In summary, only God could make that final judgment. That all would be taken into account.

...and the book of Revelation speaks of such a final judgment.

> > > God was never lost, and even the unbeliever is known to God, and perhaps the unbeliever finds personal revelation to lead them to faith...... a person's life becomes transformed... AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE OVERNIGHT... A DAY TO GOD IS LIKE 1000 YEARS.... why not use an Agnostic to his greater purpose?

The Bible also says, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

So who can say who will be kept out of paradise? The day of the great and final judgment has yet to come, yet, God is judging even now, one's whole life taken into account from God's perspective, a life in its full context; their life's works and every idle thought. Jesus merely taught how to live life well. :) Jesus taught a religion of LOVE. No human alive, has the wisdom to make such an insightful judgment on any other person, to know what their life will become, their life in its entire context, to truly know the heart and mind of any other soul. Every human soul is a Work in Progress and Under Construction. God alone has that wisdom.
So I agree with Jesus, that many "Christians" will come and say, "Lord we prophesied in your name," and told "Depart, I know you not." While many unbelievers who lived a life of good fruit, that is, good works, will inherit paradise, because God was always with them, though they never knew it.

My Agnostic Friend: The parable of the wheat and the tares says it's best to let them grow side by side otherwise you are likely to pull up some wheat with the tares, which means when they are young plants they look very similar. You can't tell what will be for anyone. Though some religious folks like to think they already know.

According to mainstream Christianity,

Is The Holy Bible Easy To Understand?
myth-one.com/chapter_18.htm
Jesus spoke in parables so that He would not be understood. In addition, there are several verses which indicate that the scriptures are "sealed." ...

So from where does your spiritual understanding of Jesus' parable come from??

Read More »

Snakes Do Eat Dirt.. common sense

0

Atheism is not a religion for people who have common sense and I suppose this serves as my #3,522nd reason never to believe in Atheism.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions
infidels.org/library/modern/jim.../bible-contradictions.html
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt. GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and ...

Snakes "DO NOT," says the atheist adamantly testifying to this indisputable scientific "fact". Snakes DO NOT and I REPEAT, DO NOT eat dirt, because the Bible says Snakes do.

However, let's just keep an open mind how about it and skip over to people who regularly handle snakes and see how they handle the matter.

Is it ok for snakes to swallow dirt?

I just fed my baby snake a frozen pinky that I unthawed by placing in warm water. The problem is that when i dropped the pinky it landed in the dirt some of the dirt got on it and the snake swallowed it. Is this ok?


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Snakes in the wild will swallow whatever happens to get on their food. Lacking any way of cleaning the food before consumption, it is common for them to swallow things such as dirt, flakes of tree bark, pieces of grass and/or dried leaves etc. Some things can be harmful and even fatal for the snake like sand for instance. Sand is rough and somewhat "edgy", meaning it can damage the digestive tract of the snake resulting in internal bleeding and infection. Larger objects that can't be digested can become lodged and block the intestinal tract resulting in infection and certain death of the snake. A little dirt should be no problem for them as long as there was no introduction of any chemicals used in gardening or fertilizer products. Hope this helps.
Yahooooooo answers

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:36:02 -0400
You are missing what I wrote, probably didn't even read it. Many animals eat some dirt, you and I do too, while others live their whole lives covered in nothing but dirt, along with their food. Snakes ingest less dirt than some other types of animals. They are also sticking their tongues into the air to smell what's around them. The point is that the bible was composed by people based on made-up tales, anthropomorphisms, lack of knowledge of the natural world, lack of knowledge of evolution, and what knowledge they did have of the natural world, human biology, and the cosmos was most often based on superficial appearances.

* tsk tsk *
It is you sir who missed the whole entire point.

THE ATHEIST SAYS, "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt."

But Snakes DO eat dirt.



Snakes do eat dirt. It's quite a normal affair in fact. And yes, there are some people who eat dirt.

And if Atheists are wrong on such a simple point, one can safely assume they're wrong on a great many more things!!!

And one further question...

Are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth without even realizing it?
Cognitive Dissonance?
You say that the account in Genesis is "Babylonian Mythology," until it no longer reflects Babylonian Mythology. So which is it?

Wouldn't the Ancients such as the Babylonians had have enough knowledge to have known snakes eat mice, other snakes, insects, birds and practically anything they can unlock their jaws and wrap around?

The Babylonians and Egyptians, who *worshipped* snakes (ah, the very men you accuse of being the true authors of Genesis) knew the diets of such creatures quite well, did they not? Why would learned Babylonian scribes omit the diet of serpents, which they were well-acquainted with?

Pets in Ancient Rome
Collegium_VitaQuotidiana/pets.php
The Romans did indeed keep all sorts of animals as pets, and many of them would be ... Cats were really only kept extensively in Egypt and lands influenced by ... There is also a tale about a woman who raised snakes; she was often seen ...

POLL: Reptile Questions (Snakes and Lizards)?
Yahoo! Answers
answers.yahoo.com › Home › All Categories › Pets › Reptiles
3 answers - Apr 9
It depends what you mean by "pet", there is evidence that the egyptians had kept snakes. I would think it was mostly a religious thing for them.

Angel of God and the Mystery of Iniquity
ebooks/theangelofgod.htm
Serpent worship was a major factor in the apostasy of Nimrod, and the Serpent a “chief” god of the Babylonian Mystery. Harmless snakes were kept as pets and ...

King Tut (@KingTutTweets) on Twittertwitter.com/KingTutTweets
In Ancient Egypt we kept snakes as pets in the home to eat rodents. On the internet they eat your tweets. tweetaconda.com #tweetaconda 11:52 AM Mar 13th via ...

Animals of the Mythologies S-Z
magicrealms/animalssz.html
Pet snakes were kept in Greece, Rome and Crete as guardians and as ...

Let's start with a verse in Isaiah that you pointed out to me years ago:
Isaiah 65:25
NET © A wolf and a lamb will graze together; a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,
and a snake’s food will be dirt. * They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,” says the Lord.
Or
NIV © The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Oh, that "failed prophecy" in Isaiah about snakes??

Take a look at how the word "dust" is used in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 32:24 They shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and bitter destruction. I will send the teeth of animals on them, With the poison of crawling things of the dust. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)

You are still avoiding the question. You claim Babylonians and Egyptian mythology authored the Bible. Right?? Well then, since scribes and learned men who themselves worshiped and handled snakes, and knew well of snake diets wrote the books of the Bible you claim, why would they claim snakes "eat dirt," when they knew better? Do you still claim Babylonian and Egyptians authored Genesis?

Here's another verse, if the idol was reduced to "dust", why burn "dust"?

2 Chronicles 15:16 Also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. (WEB JPS ASV)

More uses of this Hebrew word "dust" :

Sounds as though "dust" is not always, fine grains of sand, or clay, or small particles, but can include large chunks, and "creeping things of dirt".

Matthew 21:44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."

Bits and pieces...and chunks of flesh = Hebrew for "dust".

Luke 20:18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust." (WEB ASV BBE NAS)
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. (WEB DBY RSV NIV)
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (WEB DBY RSV)
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of goats and oxen, and the dust from the burning of a young cow, being put on the unclean, make the flesh clean: (BBE)
Exodus 8:17 They did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were lice on man, and on animal; all the dust of the earth became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)
Exodus 9:8 And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, Take in your hand a little dust from the fire and let Moses send it in a shower up to heaven before the eyes of Pharaoh. (BBE)
Numbers 19:10 And he who takes up the dust of the burned cow is to have his clothing washed with water and be unclean till evening: this is to be a law for ever, for the children of Israel as well as for the man from another country who is living among them. (BBE)
Numbers 19:17 And for the unclean, they are to take the dust of the burning of the sin-offering, and put flowing water on it in a vessel: (BBE)
Numbers 23:10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous! Let my last end be like his!" (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV

And if you refer to the "discrepancy" of a "failed prophecy",

Isaiah implies the snake will remain unchanged, and continue to go on its belly and eat dust... catching its prey in the dust. I'm sorry the Hebrews didn't provide PERFECT ENGLISH GRAMMAR in their ancient Hebrew scrolls, but then again, few of the ancient cultures took modern English under consideration.

"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

Which also doesn't imply they had legs 10,000 years ago and were cursed then to become legless. Such an example; you are already standing on your feet and I command you, "On your feet you shall go, and wander through the city, barefoot, and develop sores on your feet and find no relief! You shall find no place to sit and rest your weary legs, and you shall fry yourself in the noon time sun!"

Implying the act of perpetually, eternally, condemned to wander... though it were already on its belly and we know this from the fossil record. So Isaiah merely confirmed the curse would remain as it were.

----

Addendum: "Dust" can contain whole bone material, creeping things like lice, all of which are "dust". Not exclusively grains of sand or particles of clay. (To the Atheist which I've conversed with on this topic): You should know better, afterall, haven't you read the Bible numerous times and taken time to study the subtle Hebrew and Greek word meanings?

"Dust" of a Sacrifice:

GEMARA: R. Mari bar Abbahu in the name of R. Itz'hak said: The bones, still retaining marrow, of consecrated sacrifices, if left over as remainder, defile the hands touching them. Why so? Because they are a basis to a prohibited article (i.e., the marrow which was left over and should be burned).

An objection was raised: (We have learned:) The bones left over from consecrated sacrifices are not subject to being burned, excepting only the bones of the paschal offering; (because they must not be broken but left in their original condition and) it might happen that some of the flesh should cling to them. Now, let us see what kind of bones are meant! Shall we assume such as have not retained the marrow? Who would hold that such should be burned? Hence such as still retain the marrow must be meant. In that event, if the bones are considered a basis to a prohibited article, i.e., they serve the marrow as receptacles, why should they not be burnt?

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Bones which had been found broken and the marrow extracted are referred to; thus the bones of other sacrifices, which may be broken, may have been broken and the marrow extracted from them before they had had an opportunity of becoming a remainder of a sacrifice; hence they need not be burnt. The bones of a paschal offering, however, which must remain whole, could have been broken and had the marrow extracted from them only after becoming a remainder, and for that reason they must be burnt."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "All sinews are considered of flesh except the sinews of the neck (i.e., if one ate only the nerves of the flesh of the paschal offering, it is the same as if he had eaten the flesh itself)."

An objection was made based upon our Mishna, which teaches "that bones, nerves, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th." Now, let us see what sinews are referred to? If the sinews of the body in general are meant, why not eat them; and if it is claimed that they were left over, why mention them separately-are they not the same as the other remaining parts? Therefore we must say, that the sinews of the neck are meant. If that be the case and, according to Rabh, they are not considered as flesh, why should they be burned? Said R. Hisda: "By the sinews which must be burned, is meant the sinew of the thigh (which is not eaten), and, according to R. Jehudah's opinion that only the sinew of one of the thighs is prohibited to be eaten, the sinew of the other is a legal remainder and should be burned." R. Ashi said: "The Boraitha means to state, that not the sinew proper, but only the fat thereof on account of which the sinew is burned with it, is referred to, as we have learned in another Boraitha, that the fat of the sinew of the thigh may be eaten but it is not customary to do so (as will be explained in Tract Cholin)," and Rabhina said: "The sinew which must be burned is the one on the outside, which, while it is permitted to eat it, is not generally eaten by Israelites (as will also be explained in Tract Cholin)."
Jewish Virtual Library, on Sacrifices.

---

I never said that snakes ingested no dirt or dust at all,

The Atheist at infidels.org said it.

yes, it is.

>my point is that it's no "curse."

It's pretty cursed. And like the guy said in Yahoo answers, if something gets down in the snake's belly that's sharp, like sand, it can injure the snake, and other debris -- it can kill the snake.

---

How can you call any animal cursed? The sense in which the Bible does

I didn't call it cursed. The Hebrews did, perhaps you'd like to look up "Cursed" in the Concordance to know for sure what the original Hebrew language implied when the equivalent for "Cursed" was used by their writers.
But I do know my neighbors don't like snakes and sure do aim to chop off their head, and don't want snakes in their yards. In fact, the city ordinance is to keep the lawns mowed, unless snakes start moving in and create a threat.

so is only justified based on what HUMANS hate. It's a fable. An anthropomorphic and appearance-based fable.

And it *appears* to be a cursed animal. Most of my neighbors would be cursing and swearing if a snake showed up, thus, cursed.

And that is your opinion, remember?
Was it the opinion of the Atheist at infidels.org that "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt," too?
Well, his opinion is wrong.

So much for his religion of Atheism and all its "Absolute Truths"®™

Reptilian and even amphibian species are known to have lost their legs (the former species becoming "snakes") long before the first humans

The fossil record shows they lost their legs, may have regrew them and lost them again!!! But, so what?

evolved, that was long before anything resembling an Adam or an Eve ever ate any forbidden fruit and "disobeyed God."

AND THEN THERE WAS THIS PHENOMENA THAT OCCURRED.. something about a Hox gene shifting forward, so scientists know snakes will never grow their front limbs again and ultimately that means snakes will never walk again.

---

lol, thanks for pointing that out.

say you're cursed to sometimes choke on sand if your prey's body is covered in it. The text says the serpent was cursed to go on it's belly.

It says,
"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

And you're right!!!

There's the curse. If its getting sand and other sharp particles in its belly, it can kill the snake. I hadn't really put it together meself. You're a God-send sometimes, even though you're an Atheist.

Read More »

George Bernard Shaw on Eugenics

0

Q: Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?
A: Who knows?

Q: Was Charles Darwin a Communist?
A: Not at all.

Q: Was Charles Darwin blamed for what Atheists did with his theory?
A: Yes.

Q: Do Atheists make any attempts to correct their (*)crimes against humanity and rectify the harm they have done to Darwin's theory?
A: No.
   (*) See video at Documentary, Blood History of Communism where Darwin is given 100% of the blame by Muslims for the death tolls under Communism. Whilst the atrocties and death tolls are accurate, the blame on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is not. ATHEISM is totally to blame, but Charles Darwin is not.

Q: What religious group has done more than any other to harm Darwin's theory of Natural Selection?
A: Atheists.

Whilst "Extinction," may have been on the docket of Darwin's Theory, "Extermination" was not.

“I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
― George Bernard Shaw



According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw, George Bernard Shaw is uttering these words:

In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

This sentiment is followed up at http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Bernard_Shaw

with,

One of Shaw's long-term obsessions was mass murder by means of poison gas. In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, he said:

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living... A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

That's more than enough "Evidence" to provide the #2,748th reason I refuse to be an atheist.

Atheists make NO effort to correct their flawed versions of history.

Atheists try to swing it in the "Hitler was a Christian" direction.
Atheists try to pawn their genocide off on Christians and Jews as the fault for it.
Given half an opportunity, Atheists will go right back to their original killing plans in the Communist Manifesto.

Atheists weren't disappointed with Hitler's mass-murder, they were only disappointed he exterminated the wrong group of people.. should've been based on class warfare.

Atheists are not sorry.
Atheists KNOW history. Atheists remember history, and make no apologies for it.

Remember history, lest it repeat itself... my posterior, Jim Jones!!!



"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was infiltrate the church."

But Jim Jones was no "Man of God".
Jim Jones was an Atheist.
Jim Jones was a Communist.
To be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, you must first be... an Atheisst!!

And Atheists will continue on adamantly denying the lies, the fraud, the vile hatred, the perversions, the deceit, the human massacre, the. . . Atheism . . . of communist cult leader, Jim Jones.

Atheists deny truth. Atheists deny what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. Atheists bury their head in the sand. Atheists can do mental cartwheels and loops to justify why Atheism is a good religion. But Atheism is Bad, Bad Religion.

Jim Jones own words:

"I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church. So I consciously made a decision to look into that pro— that prospect. Particularly was it inspired upon me — (struggles for words) I say infil— infiltrate the church. It really was brought to my attention by a very kindly (Pause) and I pause, because of again feeling that it can reflect on others — a man who had a great deal of conscience that seemed to be compatible to my views, who was a church administrator of a denomination, and he, he encouraged me to think about being a pastor. And so I did. (Laughs) Very quickly did. I’d had my religious heritage in Pentecostalism — deep-rooted emotions in the Christian tradition (Pause) and a deep love which I share to this day for the practical teachings of Jesus Christ. It had always been a sort of dual concept: a doubter, and yet a believer. Certainly I had great questions about anthropomorphic beings and a loving order to the universe, but Jesus Christ, to use a kid’s phrase, greatly turned me on. And I tried very hard through my years in the church — whatever uh, someone else might look upon my role uh, however they would look upon it, they could see a great deal of sensitivity to the Christian teachings. Not only my brand of Marxism, but in Pentecostal tradition, I saw that when the early believers came together, they sold their possessions and had all things common. So I tried very hard to live up to that concept throughout my years. (Pause)

The early years, I’d approached Christendom from a communalist standpoint, with only intermittent mention of my um, Marxist views. However, in later years, there wasn’t a person that attended any of my meetings that did not hear me say, at some time, that I was a communist, (Pause) and that is what is very strange, that all these years, I have survived without being exposed."
Jonestown - sdsu.ed taped transcripts of Jim Jones

Atheists will continue to deny, and say Jim Jones was a Christian vs. what he really was, a con artist and an ATHEIST pretending to be a pastor, and even more diabolical, his deliberate effort to defraud and swindle the masses. That serves as the #2,749th reason it would be a cold day in hell before I'd convert to Atheism.

Read More »

Stupid Is, As Stupid Does

0

Listen up kids. Our lesson today is how Atheists are guilty of hate crimes under the guise of free speech. Let's open our lesson books by Googling, "Hitler portrayed Jews as Stupid". And let's see what the tooth fairy brings us,


The Jewish Symbol with a "Verboten" symbol over it, duly noted!

Hate Crimes II
hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/hate2.html
... The Nazi's started by portraying the Jews as stupid and inferior people with their

Nazi Propagandawww.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005274
... Nazi films portrayed Jews as "subhuman" creatures infiltrating Aryan society.

The Daily Conservativethedailyconservative.tumblr.com/
... To achieve this, Adolf Hitler portrayed Jews as non-humans. “

How was the Portrayal of the Jewish people in Germany before the ...
wiki.answers.com › ... › History › War and Military History › World War 2
They didn't do anything to Hitler or Germany. Hitler wanted to have a perfect race with blonde hair, blue eyes and white. He thought Jews stupid and weren't ...

Nicotine Nazis
davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html
... Jews were portrayed as weak willed, diseased, stupid and inferior. School children



And this atheist rabble really embodies everything civilized society would deem a reflection of "intellectual superiority"? Only the kind of rabble a fuhrer can love! Put a brownshirt on it and its good to go!



*scoffs*


Now, tell me dear children, what does any of that have to do with "Science" or "Intellect"? Or for that matter, the betterment of society?
Absolutely nothing. Because Atheism is not scientific reasoning, has nothing to do with intelligence or science, nor does a "lack of evidence" made to serve as "evidence," demonstrate a rational line of logic.

I guess that serves as the #1,265th reason I can not believe in Atheism.

And the #1,266th reason I can't believe in Atheism:

"...the Shrill, Shank and Swill Committee on Scientific Affairs membership is comprised of nearly almost all Atheists..."

Atheists make a lame attempt here at trying to imply that a belief in God equates to a reduced intellect? If that's so, I suppose Atheists are as brilliant as the common swine and yard-bird, because pigs don't believe in God either.

I guess one can deduce, "Atheism is for the birds!"

Perhaps at last, we can gain some TRUE insight into the level of intellect it requires to become an atheist.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man,
and from man to pig,
and from pig to man again;
but already it was impossible to say which was which."
- Animal Farm, George Orwell

How very very "intellectual," indeed!

Depends entirely on personal bias and how one picks their scientists.

In the movie on her life, at the end Temple Grandin expresses how when she works with cattle, they're living animals, "individuals," and she can feel "God" -- (See 1:21 of 6:23).



She's definately one of the best scientists that's out there today. The cattle industry changed because of her innovative ideas, which were grounded on scientific observation and psychology, and a lot of genius.

Darwin was sooooo grandiose? It's one thing to suggest we descended from animals, another to read their minds!! She reads cows minds. She knows how they think.

TEMPLE GRANDIN:
"I became aware of just how precious life was. I thought about death, and I felt close to God."

So Atheists, go ahead and pick and choose your scientists, and so will I.

It all depends what you think is a great achievement, and what you disregard as non-important. I think she's one of the great scientists of our modern day.

Of course, atheists are going to continue cherrypicking shrill, loud-mouth atheists as their favorite examples because they're not at all that interested in science itself. They cherrypick bits and pieces, to wage a war against religion, and take great pains to ignore all the good people in science who make albeit less-trumpeted, yet the most important contributions, while retaining a belief in a greater power that is a source for their moral guidance.

On the bright side for atheists, the cattle Temple Grandin works with are atheists. I suppose that's the level of intellect necessary to be an atheist... base instinct and following primordial impulses.

We can easily continue on with great contributors to civilization, who believed in a higher power and the value of certain precepts found in most religion,

"I believe God is managing affairs and that He doesn't need any advice from me. With God in charge, I believe everything will work out for the best in the end. So what is there to worry about."
― Henry Ford

==================================================

WRIGHT BROTHERS... INVENTORS OF THE AIR PLANE... CHRISTIANS.



===================================================

Benjamin Franklin
"The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

Below are two more quotes from Franklin that express his understanding of God:

"My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority.If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!"
-In a letter to William Strahan, August 19, 1784

"I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler."
-On the impact of Independence on generations of Americans during the Constitutional Convention

BAIRD, JOHN LOGIE
John Logie Baird (1888-1946) was a Scottish inventor and engineer who was a pioneer in the development of mechanical television. In 1924, Baird televised objects in outline. In 1925, he televised human faces. In 1926, Baird was the first person to televise pictures of objects in motion. In 1930, Baird made the first public broadcast of a TV show, from his studio to the London Coliseum Cinema; the screen consisted of a 6-ft by 3-ft array of 2,100 tiny flashlamp bulbs. Baird developed a color television in 1928, and a stereo television in 1946. Baird's mechanical television was usurped by electronic television, which he also worked on.
(His father was a preacher.)

The game of basketball was invented by James Naismith (1861-1939). Naismith was a Canadian physical education instructor who invented the game in 1891 so that his students could participate in sports during the winter. In his original game, which he developed while at the Springfield, Massachusetts YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association), Naismith used a soccer ball which was thrown into peach baskets (with the basket bottoms intact). The first public basketball game was in Springfield, MA, USA, on March 11, 1892. Basketball was first played at the Olympics in Berlin Germany in 1936 (America won the gold medal, and Naismith was there).

Just going through some on the top 20 inventions of the 20th Century... most appear to be Christians or at least, believing in a higher power and the validity of religious faith, etc.

Here is one example of a non-believer who is also, a scientist:

Bill Gates: "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Bill-Gates-pledges-58-billion-fortune-charity...
Jun 20, 2008 - Microsoft founder Bill Gates has pledged to give all of his £58 billion fortune to charity - rather than leaving it for his children.

And Bill Gates, dear friends, like Scientist and Cattle-handler Temple Grandin, is on the AUTISM SPECTRUM. It would be my conclusion, that due to the bullying and immense suffering and challenges people with Autism often face, that they have learned through hardship what injury feels like and out of empathy do not wish others, to suffer. It is more likely their Autism is to credit for not only their intelligence and success as scientists, but being kinder, gentler, altruistic human beings toward their fellow man, and beast.

In the cases of both Bill Gates and Temple Grandin, you can thank Autism; not Atheism, that the planet has been enriched with two of the kindest, intelligent and generous, human beings.

I suppose Atheists wish to turn back time on civilization, and regress back to the days when we labeled entire groups of people, "Stupid" and "Inferior".

Atheists will try to make the argument fallacy that atheists are "smarter" than others. Reminds me of an old stereotype against black people, resurfacing its ugly head. Fearmongering... appealing to people's ego, just like Adolf Hitler did to drum up support from unhappy people who were failing in life. Why, in the Third Reich if you were Aryan, you were part of the "Master Race".. and of course he had his war on Christianity needless to add.

WHO IS NOT "SMART" ENOUGH?? WHO IS "STUPID"? Bigotry by any other name is bigotry. A little more tolerance, and a lot less prejudice will vastly improve your religion, Mr. and Miss Atheist. Stereotyping whole groups of people, is not only revealing of one's ignorant views but it shows one's blatant stupidity.
"Stupid" is as stupid does.

Prejudice In To Kill A Mockingbird, Discrimination
customessaymeister.com/customessays/.../13828.htm
... Women the early 1900's weren't allowed to vote or be in a jury. They said women couldn't be in a jury because they were considered to be too ... Women were thought not to be smart enough or strong enough to do some of the jobs men did.

NOT SMART ENOUGH?? Propaganda... the Nazis won votes that way, too.

Fearmongering and appealing to egotism. Here's "Intelligence" -- that no matter what Atheists might say, to attempt planting doubts in my mind, all the more determined I am to stand by my beliefs and not be moved!

Christians and Muslims and Hindus are perfectly capable of handling any of the jobs / scientific profession an atheist does.

Earlier comments remind me of a Klan rally, and some freak in a robe spouting off rhetoric about how his "skin" makes him superior. Atheists, like klansmen, have this need for false reassurance they're somehow superior, because their entire life has been a failure. They're failures, so naturally, they hook up with others who are equal failures. Atheists attack God and Theists, and Klansmen attack Jews and Blacks. So, a person's skin color makes them superior? Does it?! and Atheist religion is like the Nazi religion in that way, like Atheism makes the failure feel more important about his amoral and meaningless existence -- like the brownshirts? He or she needs reassurance, and other atheists are there vomiting up the propaganda -- the false reassurance "Yes Mr. Atheist, you are greater and grander than other human beings!" Arguments which suggest "more atheists are scientists" is a joke. There's more Christians than there are atheists, so who is doing the 100,000's of jobs across America that require the everyday application of science? Back to that Klan rally: Most of the people standing in the crowd are criminal degenerates, drunks, and all around rabble and want to believe all those deluded lies which reassure them they're somehow "magically superior" to other human beings.

Don't tell me that Atheism makes anyone smarter. Atheism is a useless philosophy. It has not made the world better for anyone. Genes determine intelligence and education from non-philosophical sources is the only medium to make people truly smarter, where they might become of actual use to society.
Atheism does make people bigots and hypocrites though.

Like Atheists, some other people in history felt this group or that group of people, weren't "smart enough".

SPOTLIGHT: Tuskegee Airmen spent time in Rantoul | Deseret News
deseretnews.com/.../SPOTLIGHT-Tuskegee-Airmen-spent-time...
Feb 2, 2012 – ... it also had to fight prejudice from leaders who thought African-Americans weren't smart enough to handle mechanical tasks needed to keep ...

25 years since Al Campanis Shocked Baseball - Edge of Sports
edgeofsports.com/2012-04-16-719/index.html
Apr 16, 2012 – Is there still that much prejudice in baseball today? ... point by arguing that the reason there weren't more African American catchers, pitchers, ... hiding this ugly prejudice for years-that black aren't smart enough to be managers or ... it back a little bit” and Frank Robinson said that “there is racism in baseball.“

The Bigotry of Atheism is the #1 reason, I can not and will never, believe in Atheism.

I believe in The Religion of Love.

---

The World NEEDS more people with Autism, not atheism‏

Nazis, like atheists and communists, often speak of comradery and "love" of their brothers, but all I ever saw come from any of these groups was hatred and bigotry. You can not squeeze blood out of a turnip, and you cannot drain "love" from beliefs that are founded on hatred.

Why aren't more atheists doing great things for their fellow man?
Why haven't atheists discovered the cure for the common cold? Why aren't atheists spending more time finding a cure for cancer instead of attacking people who have a religious belief? Atheists only care about destroying other people's faith, and some spend their days, 24/7 obsessing over other people's faith, and like a sickness in their mind, attacking people of faith.

If any atheistic non-believer do good toward their fellow man, its coming from somewhere else, not their atheism.

Bill Gates: "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Bill-Gates-pledges-58-billion-fortune-charity...
Jun 20, 2008 - Microsoft founder Bill Gates has pledged to give all of his £58 billion fortune to charity - rather than leaving it for his children.

And Bill Gates, dear friends, like Scientist and Cattle-handler Temple Grandin, is on the AUTISM SPECTRUM. It would be my conclusion, that due to the bullying and immense suffering, discrimination and challenges people with Autism often face, that they have learned through hardship what injury feels like and out of empathy do not wish others, to suffer. It is more likely their Autism is to credit for not only their intelligence and success as scientists, but being kinder, gentler, altruistic human beings toward their fellow man, and beast.

In the cases of both Bill Gates and Temple Grandin, you can thank Autism; not Atheism, that the planet has been enriched with two of the kindest, intelligent and generous, human beings.

"What moron said 'There's no atheists in foxholes'?!"
"'Not I,' clucked the little red hen."

Read More »

Stromatolites

0

I will post this for posterity to clear up any confusion readers may have had with this article.

Atheists have tunnel vision. Atheists think things can only photosynthesize from the sun's light.

Photosynthesis Found Where the Sun Don't Shine | LiveScience
livescience.com
Jun 22, 2005 – Instead of sunlight, the deep-sea microbes use geothermal radiation. "This shows that photosynthesis is something that is not limited only to the ...

Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
www.asu.edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html
Jun 21, 2005 – They published their discovery in an article titled “An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep sea hydrothermal vent,” in the ...

Photosynthesis At Deep-sea Vents
www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p08.htm
Photosynthesis At Deep-Sea Vents. The surprisingly rich populations of lifeforms that prosper around the hydrothermal vents have been thought to be utterly ...

Scientists admit there were organisms, but they left no fossils. We do know organisms can photosynthesize around hydrothermal vents; black smokers, hot springs. Stromatolites were "photosynthesizing" as far back as 3.5 billion years ago when the earth was still a cauldron of smoke and volcanic activity (which would have blocked out the sun, if it were nuclear-fusion-active, anyway.)

That's right folks, at that point in the earth's history, its highly unlikely that sunlight would've penetrated the Earth's non-existant atmosphere, for the thick black clouds (as in, "what made the dinosaurs go extinct -- lack of sunlight" which lead to a mass extinction of plants -- which started a domino effect that lead to mass extinction of most species on earth) -- meteor activity and volcanic activity was billowing forth at that time in natural history and -- with all those thick black clouds and steam... well, somehow, still, stromatolites existed.

Atheists can't figure out where the light came from, for stromatolites to photosynthesize? Of course we understand this takes a PhD in Genius to figure out.

And what were they photosynthesizing from? Hydrothermal vents, just as they did 2 billion years ago. But for any atheist who might presume, "An organism like that couldn't exist because it's not been discovered" -- Atheist logic is flawed by that same line of reasoning. God supposedly doesn't exist because they've not found "empirical evidence," which I've covered here (and backfire it does!) It is a fact: Just because species did not leave fossils, does not mean the species never existed. Good scientists tell us so.

Also, it needs to be noted... Genesis did not use the term "plant" at all. In the King James version, it distinguishes the organisms as "herbs". Latter verses in time after man is created, Genesis then specifies "plants". Clear distinctions are drawn between herbs and plants.

---

~>I'm not judging your argument in this post just want to point out that your argument depends on four things,
knowing when the sun ignited,

Fossil record tells us this. As in Cambrian Explosion.

~>knowing when the oceans formed,

Geothermal heat/radiation.

NOTE: It seems as if most Atheists don't know how to distinguish between the
1) sun "forming" as a gargantuous gas ball with tremendous gravitational pull that shaped the planets, vs.
2) the nuclear fusion equation, which came later, which is irrelevant to your question.

The sun's heat was not necessary. The Earth produces massive geothermal heat, which lead to the rise of ocean water. See,

Formation of the Ocean
The current theory holds that after the Sun formed, there was a very large disk of dust and gas orbiting it. In this disk were all the elements that we see today, which were themselves formed in the furnaces of other stars. Anyway, it lumps together because of gravity and eventually pulls itself into balls, which then eventually become planets. Water was also present in this disk, and continued to be delivered to Earth in the form of comets after our planet had solidified. It's present mostly on the surface because when the planet was first formed, it was molten rock and very volcanically active. The water inside the planet was thus ejected as steam, but held in the atmosphere by Earth's gravity.
-Wes
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_ocean_form

~>knowing when the first reproducing organisms arose,

Fossil record tells us this. Although, its believed life possibly arose even earlier but any traces of fossil activity was probably consumed by volcanic eruption. The eldest life traces are 3.8 bya (carbon ball in rock), and earliest fossil dates to about 3.5 billion years ago.

~>knowing when the first photosynthetic organisms arose.

The fossil record tells us this, although most is currently speculation and theory that some of the earliest were photosynthetic. Scientists aren't absolutely certain about anything 3.5 billion years ago but presume it was photosynthetic and finding photosynthetic organisms around deep sea hydrothermal vents almost clinches that life arose in such environments and so photosynthetic organisms probably did exist long ago in these conditions, photosynthesizing from geo-thermal radiation.

---

A couple visuals for Atheists and Creationists to "see the light".

This fact was picked up off the web. I wish people would pay closer attention to what they are reading:

Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."

The sun had formed, but it had not began the nuclear fusion at its core. The planets were formed as well. Cosmic debris like comets and meteors were rampant and plummeting into the surfaces of the planets and the sun, also, sucked in by gravity. There were all forms of gas, cosmic matter in transit around the sun, including water which earth's own geothermal heat would turn into steam, later forming our ocean. The planets were shaped by the massive gravitational force of this gargantuous gas ball that was destined to become our neighboring star, the sun. It was not the "Sun" as we know it today because the nuclear fusion at the core had not began, but this massive proto-sun was formed at the same time as the planets.

Two Very Different Things

1. Today's Sun heat energy is generated from gravity creating nuclear fusion at the core.
2. The Earth of past, present and future geo-thermal heat energy is generated at the core from gravity causing friction.

Nuclear Fusion and Friction both cause heat and light, but are two very different things.



The sun as we know it today, did NOT exist when the planets were forming. It was a cold gas ball, similar to the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. If Jupiter had more mass, the gravitational force could cause Jupiter to become our solar system's "second sun".

People steadily confuse,
1) The sun "formed" as a gas ball, -vs-
2) The sun "formed" as a nuclear-heatball.

In the case of the sun, What you mean by "Formed" can have two meanings, and both are two very different things.

Read More »

Communist Requires Party Members to Be Atheist

0

China’s official Xinhua News Agency reports that a senior Chinese Communist Party official has reminded the increasingly religious ranks of the Party what they’re required to believe. From China party official warns members over religion (AP)
“Religious practice among Chinese Communist Party members is increasing and threatens its unity and national leadership, a top party official said in remarks reported Monday.
“Party members are required to be atheists and must not believe in religion or engage in religious practice, said Zhu Weiqun, a member of the party’s Central Committee [...]
“”Voices have appeared within the party calling for an end to the ban on religion, arguing in favor of the benefits of religion for party members and even claiming the ban on religion for party members is unconstitutional,” Zhu said.” In fact, our party’s principled stance regarding forbidding members from believing in religion has not changed one iota,” he said.”
Chinese Communist Party getting too religious, senior Party official reminds members to believe what they’re told

Like under Lenin's regime, with all the censorship, that's "Atheist Freethought Today"! A new and brighter utopian society...

Several such articles confirming Atheism is mandatory to be accepted as a card carrying member of the Communist Party. So why all the false accusations that communist atrocities somehow can be blamed on Christians? when Christians, Jews, Muslims, et cetera are the victims of this Atheist zealot evil?

According to the Atheist, the Communist worships the state, so therefore, he or she is not an atheist. Perhaps it was a good Catholic to blame for the following scene in The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution

Let's blame the Catholics.

or, this scene from Spain


I suppose we can lie and claim it was a Muslim.

or, this scene,


Or perhaps these Christian are worshiping in spite of ruthless Atheist tyranny.

The latter sounds much more reasonable, and historically accurate. All the lies in the world will not excuse what Atheism has done to destroy humanity over the past century.

Read More »

When Atheist Logic Backfires and Fails

0

Referring to Two Past Posts

Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now? and,

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible
Atheist:

dazco01
You're saying that it's impossible to find evidence that God exists.
Thank you.

That's what the Bible states in the prophet's words:
Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."
Atheist:

dazco01
It seems you are using the lack of evidence for God...as evidence for God.
I think in order to have an intelligent discussion about God's existence, both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order to confirm God's existence. The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

But is that not how Atheist's produce "evidence".. by pointing to lack of evidence?

Reiterating on Atheist Logic: "...It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence I think in order to have an intelligent discussion... both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order... The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

Atheists fail to provide any evidence for Atheism themselves, except "lack of evidence". Lack of evidence is what they base their entire belief system on! It is a presumption that God does not exist, not empirical evidence. Scientists do not have direct evidence for black holes, yet they testify to the effect black holes have on surrounding stars. However, black holes are accepted as fact in modern physics. Even further, Theists aren't so foolish as to claim they have empirical evidence for God, and admit their creed is based solely on faith whilst Atheists claim they have "evidence" and demand "Evidence".

Yet, actually, Atheists base their creed on the sole basis of thier Lack of Evidence.

Mr. Atheist, I am not speaking in a different language. I have spoken in YOUR LANGUAGE when I say:

Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

Atheist: It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence.

How is it then, that it fails the logic of Atheism? Since lack of evidence is the sole foundation of the Atheist belief, perhaps for the Biblical authors, it was the foundation of their belief in God, and a profound evidence.

Lack of Evidence, is precisely what Atheists need to support their entire belief system. They have no evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they say they conclusively believe... there is no God. Ah, no evidence = belief. Then why their demands for evidence from Theists?

"With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.
Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.
I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.
Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF."

Scientific theories exist, without direct evidence... proof, they say? Yet Atheists have no problem accepting these theories on faith. And even still, there is no direct PROOF, for the non-existence of God.
This particular Atheist never had the viable "Proof" God does not exist. Lack of evidence, is not "proof". Forensic investigations are not done that way. Investigators develop a theory and seek evidence. Scientific theories are formulated in the same manner. Theories are formed after which, evidence is sought. It is my belief, that Atheists do not genuinely seek evidence. It was the belief of Biblical writers, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God. The "Burden of Proof" argument fallacy does not fall on myself or theists. Afterall, who needs evidence. Lack of evidence is "evidence"!

John is driving in his car with Lucy. John tells Lucy, "Look over there," and points toward an area among the distant trees. "A murder took place over there just a few years back" Lucy is curious. Lucy wants to know more. After several days, Lucy drives back to the spot just as she remembers John pointing it out to her. Lucy anxiously expects to see "evidence". There should be a body or some other evidence that indicates "murder," shouldn't there? But there is no body, no blood, there's nothing. There is no "evidence" for a murder anywhere in the location. Perhaps John just lied, and made up the whole entire story. Lucy gets angry at John and accuses him of lying, since afterall, shouldn't his claim that "a murder took place in said spot," be accompanied with evidence? Lucy is too lazy to question police, or browse old newspapers. Lucy does not continue her search for more answers. Lucy closes her mind and feels the "lack of evidence" is enough "evidence" to satisfy her mind, make up her conclusions, that no murder ever took place and John, is a liar. From that point on, she will not accept old newspaper reports, testimonies from witnesses, living relatives of the murder victims, books on the murder or any claim that contradicts her "Truth" on the matter. Afterall, hadn't Lucy went to that location and saw with her own two eyes, there was no body? No blood. No evidence. What more "Proof" does anyone need? Lucy is a genius. Lucy thinks like an Atheist!!

Likewise, such "lack of evidence" adequately explains why some other people might form a belief in God based on that same line of logic. Hey, afterall, if its good enough for Atheists to form a whole belief system based entirely on lack of evidence, then why isn't it good enough for Theists? Afterall, according to the Atheist belief system "lack of evidence," is "evidence".

And for those of you who've erroneously believed you are atheists, but can mentally embrace the fact that you have no solid evidence to base your opinion on, which was formed in the total absence of evidence, A.K.A. "proof" to establish your non-belief in God on, that makes you an Agnostic and in my opinion, that raises the bar for one to be viewed as slightly more intelligent. There are many things in the cosmos that remain unknown... for an intelligent, scientific-minded person says of those things they know not, "I don't know."

---

Actually, atheists would argue using a similar story,

But the problem is dear...

but inserting a creationist who visits the Olduvai Gorge at the spot where the bones of "Lucy" the Australopithicine

I am not a "creationist."

were discovered, and since the creationist doesn't spot the fossils there any longer,

and therefore this point you tried to make is totally moot.

and doesn't consult the science journals, disbelieves in any fossil evidence for evolution.

Creationism and God, do not equate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

And the example still stands. Just as primitive man does not disprove God, you can't prove God by it either. You can prove evolution, but you can not prove or disprove God using the fossil record. The record stands on its own merit.

And, while the good Lord was allowing things to evolve, and tinkering with DNA, I'm sure he'd already considered this long before you came on the fossil record:

"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God.

Read More »

Three reasons I can't believe in Atheism

0

Atheists lost belief because of errors in Theism and Creationism, so they say. Right? They cherrypick the weakest, most mythical watered-down arguments and then say "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc are wrong." Then, proceed at their attempts to sell their religion, Atheism. That's what I call flawed logic. Think that Atheism doesn't have its own share of errors to explain?

Well, I listened to the Atheists' arguments and came away realizing they have some sweeping to do around their own back doorstep before criticizing their neighbor's clutter. They have some beams to pluck from their own eyes before criticizing the splinter in mine.

The "facts" of Atheism didn't add up and still don't add up. Science is leaving Atheism in the dust. Facts often won't add up with a philosophy if you're cherrypicking the most ignorant of apologists; for instance, Kent Hovind and ilk. Kent Hovind hardly qualifies to represent my views or the views of most educated Christians. He's a circus performer, not a scientist. I took a look at many of Atheism's errors, and concluded "This, pseudo-philosophy Atheism, can't be true". Afterall, if there are any scientific errors then their philosophy is a false teaching. Right?

But perhaps some of us have accepted that we don't need religion, or patent truths and not fearing to stand alone and take comfort in the fact, "I may never know. And, in the cosmic scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Life will go on and the sun will rise tomorrow and that's fine by me."

The religions of Atheism and Theism need "Absolute Truths(TM)" and that headrush of standing on "the winning side". Being a part of something bigger than one's self but of course never having to do the actual work that's required. But in my studies, Atheism is in as much error, if not more so, than Theism. At least Theism's creed is based on FAITH which requires no evidence. But Atheism boasts to be based on EVIDENCE, and I have not seen "Evidence". Atheists have failed to produce "Proof."

Find one error and then throw it all in the philosophical waste basket, and seek out some new world view in the search for "Truth(TM)." That's discomforting to Atheists and Theists alike. Not knowing what "The Truth(TM)" is and not knowing where to go next, or who to call one's "brethren"? I suppose we can ignore new evidence, and live in a state of denial, or we can simply accept that a view is not for everyone, especially when Atheism's facts aren't available. Afterall, don't Atheists tell us they don't accept anything on faith? They need proof? Also, I will post the following proof I need to dismiss Atheism as a false doctrine.

BIG ERROR #ONE
Using Polydactyly as an example of evolution.

Meet "Jacob" the Polydactyl Cat with Six Toes.
Atheistic Darwinists claim anomalies of this nature are "random genetic mutations" plotting new body designs. Actually, it's nothing "new." (see PubMed).
Since this has been going on for several 100 Million years, then why has evolution failed to produce the tens of thousands of species with six digits we should've seen long before now? This is not evidence for a "Random Mutation." It's more like a genetic throwback to the past. For the atheist argument, See Polydactylity) which is not evolution, but an abnormality which spawns from Junk DNA.

See "An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097908

University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. The fossil record of early tetrapods has been increased recently by new finds from the Devonian period and mid-late Early Carboniferous period. Despite this, understanding of tetrapod evolution has been hampered by a 20-million-year gap ('Romer's Gap') that covers the crucial, early period when many key features of terrestrial tetrapods were acquired. Here I describe the only articulated skeleton of a tetrapod, Pederpes, yet found from the Tournaisian epoch (354-344 million years ago (Myr)). The new taxon includes a pes with five robust digits, but a very small, possibly supernumerary digit preserved on the manus suggests the presence of polydactyly. Polydactylous early tetrapods may have survived beyond the end of the Devonian and pentadactyly cannot be assumed for the pes. However, the pes has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms. Pederpes is the earliest-known tetrapod to show the beginnings of terrestrial locomotion and was at least functionally pentadactyl. With its later American sister-genus, Whatcheeria, it represents the next most primitive tetrapod clade after those of the Late Devonian, bridging the temporal, morphological and phylogenetic gaps that have hitherto separated Late Devonian and mid-Carboniferous tetrapod faunas.
PMID: 12097908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Looks like six toes to me, and apparently this has been going on a very, very long time and is renders no "proof(TM)" for Atheism.

Atheists were converted to Atheism, using weak anti-creationist arguments and patent non-scientifically thought-out so-called darwinist counter-arguments. But Science, is not done that way. The exception makes the rule and there is always some thing, some fact, some new twist and new piece of evidence that throws a monkey wrench into "Absolute Truth(TM)" and doesn't afford adherents of the atheist religion the luxury of kicking off their shoes and laying back on their comfort couch of the "patent one and only truth(TM)". This discipline is called SCIENCE. Not religion.

SCIENCE keeps pushing forward for more answers and in a perpetual state of flux saying, "I don't know." Whilst Religions like Atheism set on their laurels, falsely reassured in thier "Absolute Truth(TM)" thus, inevitably failing to grow in knowledge and intellect.

Atheism is a religion for the feeble minded. "My cat has six toes, therefore it proves why I refuse to believe in God." Comparing apples and oranges?? I suppose I could also rationalize since my cat has six toes, that God has blessed my cat by making it special enough to be featured on my blog post? But perhaps the more sane rationale is, God has nothing to do with it one way or the other, these maladies turn up in nature by happen-stance, because junk DNA has stuck around since the dawn of complex organisms. Atheists make a fallacy error, by making any comparisons between God and flawed arguments of creationists, or for that matter, anything in the empirical world. God is not of the "empirical realm" and thus, you can not expect empirical evidence for a spiritual God.
This fact stands alone: God has not been disproven by science, because science deals only in the empirical.

BIG ERROR #TWO
Scientific misinformation.



BIG ERROR #THREE
From an Atheist's criticism of creationism,

"When the creationist smoke screen finally dissipates, the debate hall falling silent at last, the young-earth advocate finds himself back on square one. He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us! Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

But Science is not restrained by Dave Matson's "Glass Half Empty," Atheism. Those physicists wouldn't be trying to break the speed of light, if they didn't feel it CAN be done. Perhaps, they have a bit o' faith in the so-called "impossible". That is to say,

"Last week’s bombshell physics news--those superluminal neutrinos that CERN’s OPERA experiment clocked moving faster than the speed of light--are already getting the rigorous vetting that OPERA’s researchers were hoping for......Which means, they say, that in all likelihood these neutrinos never achieved superluminal speeds. The anomaly is an error in the data or measurement of the speed, or some other brand of misunderstanding or miscalculation.Which makes a certain amount of sense, writes Steve Nerlich over at Universe Today over the weekend. Neutrinos do move very fast, straight through the Earth (neutrinos don’t interact much with normal matter), relying on GPS time-stamping and other methods of man-made measurement that are very precise but certainly not infallible to determine time and distance traveled. And it’s not like these neutrinos were clocked doubling the speed of light or something like that--the difference is 60 nanoseconds. That’s another way of saying that the neutrinos in question are thought to have traveled at 1.0025 times the speed of light. That’s certainly a small enough margin to be explained away by some kind of measurement error.Still, the jury remains out on this one, and we certainly don’t want to dismiss a perfectly good game-changing science story just because it seems hard to reconcile with the status quo. After all, if OPERA’s result turns out to be confirmed it is going to completely reorient physics as we know them. More on this as it develops.

"Attempts,,,,to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

First black hole for light created on Earth - physics
newscientist.com
An electromagnetic black hole has been built in a lab – and may one day be adapted to generate limitless solar energy even on a cloudy day.

Scientists Make Desktop Black Hole | Wired Science | Wired.com
wired.com ~ desktop-black-hole/
Oct 14, 2009 – Two Chinese scientists have successfully made an artificial black hole. Since you’re still reading this, it’s safe to say that Earth hasn’t been sucked into its vortex. That’s because a black hole doesn’t technically require a massive, highly concentrated gravitational field that prevents light from escaping, as postulated by Albert Einstein. It just needs to capture light — or, to be more precise, electromagnetic radiation, of which visually perceived light is one form.
Together, the patterns completely absorbed microwave radiation coming from any direction, and converted their energy to heat. Like a near-black hole designed earlier this year and made from photon-absorbing carbon nanotubes, the material could be used in solar energy panels.

ATHEISM, STRIKES OUT! Atheists say it can't be done. Couldn't happen. But it has... can... does... it will.
There we have scientists, stepping out on a limb, experimenting with what Einstein deemed impossible... perhaps "Faith" in things "not seen, (believed possible) and hoped for"... perhaps science isn't that different from the theist creed, afterall. Faith. If science only dealt with "facts" and established evidence (as Atheism falsely claims to do) and never pushed its limits, why, what progress would there be in that? But Atheism has never produced evidence. It claims to "demand proof" ... boasts to "have evidence" ... yet not even as much as one shred of evidence has ever been produced to support the philosophical view of Atheism in the empirical world. Theists on the other hand will at least confess their creed is entirely a matter of Faith, not evidence.

---

And, just because. Here's a bonus reason I can not believe in Atheism.

BIG ERROR #FOUR
One of my favorite orators, Robert G. Ingersoll whom yes, was an Agnostic, but often mistaken as an Atheist. Ingersoll's ceaseless wit and intellect, to which he confesses on many occasions he "does not know," in comparison to Atheists who naturally presume to know everything,

Words are the shadows of all that has been; they are the mirrors of all that is. The ghosts also enlightened our fathers in astronomy and geology. According to them the world was made out of nothing, and a little more nothing having been taken than was used in the construction of the world, the stars were made out of the scraps that were left over...
Ghosts

The real question is: In the light of science, in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth century, is this book true? The gentleman who wrote it begins by telling us that God made the universe out of nothing. That I cannot conceive; it may be so, but I cannot conceive it. Nothing, regarded in the light of raw material, is to my mind, a decided and disastrous failure, I cannot imagine of nothing being made into something, any more than I can of something being changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force aside from matter, because force to be force must be active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active. So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest opinion.
Mistakes of Moses

But Atheists can conceive of "Nothing". They look up. They look down. They look around themselves, and see no God. Therefore, God can not exist. They only know what they see with their own two eyes. Anything else beyond the five senses, can not exist. Genius!

I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man, that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden; but he noticed that he got lonesome (laughter); he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train (laughter); there was nothing to interest him; no news, no papers, no politics; no policy, and as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation (hearty laughter and prolonged applause); not even for civil service reform (Continued laughter) Well, he would wander about this garden in this condition until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion; and having used up all the nothing...
Liberty of Man, Woman and Child

Back of that time there must have been an eternity, during which there had existed nothing-absolutely nothing-except this supposed God, according to this theory, this God spent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum and in perfect idleness.
Admitting that a god did create the universe, then the question arises, of what did he create it? It certainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, then, that a God must have made the universe out of himself, He being the only existence. The universe is material, and if it was made of God, the God must have been material. With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander of Miletus said: "Creation is the decomposition of the infinite."
It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun only for the fact that it is attracted by other worlds, those worlds must be attracted worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is left?
Gods

Created from Nothing? Atheists look around themselves for evidence, and see empty space, therefore, "Nothing" is there. Many notes of the audience mockingly laughing, however, Ingersoll lived before the time of Einstein, long before the time Quantum Mechanics entered into the equation and left behind even Einstein. Simple minded Atheists still look to the night-sky, and see the vastness of the Cosmos and presume "Nothing" is there, as Atheists often wonder, "What a terrible waste of space," they see "nothing" so of course, no God either. It's "empty space," and "nothing" is there. And, speaking of that vast "nothing," Some thing is there. It was there, all along. It is invisible, but consumes most of the cosmos.

"It is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe."
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics ~ what-is-dark-energy/

I would like for an atheist to produce an empirical sample of this dark energy. Afterall, how can anyone believe in something they can't see with their eyes, or hear with their ears? It must be experienced with the five senses, or it can not exist. Right? I demand "evidence".

Modern physics responds:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO [7.6.06]
A Talk with Lawrence Krauss
edge.org ~ krauss06.2_index.html
"But in cosmology what we're having now is this cockamamie universe. We've discovered a tremendous amount. We've discovered the universe is flat, which most of us theorists thought we knew in advance, because it's the only beautiful universe. But why is it flat? It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands. This was an amazing discovery in 1998 or so.

"It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands...we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space..."

But what you couldn't understand was how to cancel a number to a hundred and twenty decimal places and leave something finite left over. You can't take two numbers that are very large and expect them to almost exactly cancel leaving something that's 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that's what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.
We knew the answer. There was a symmetry and the number had to be exactly zero. Well, what have we discovered? There appears to be this energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem. When we look out at the universe, if this dark energy is something that isn't quite an energy of empty space but its just something that's pretending to be that, we might measure that it's changing over time.
Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space. And many people have hoped they'd see that is because then you wouldn't need quantum gravity, which is a theory we don't yet have, to understand this apparent dark energy. Indeed, one of the biggest failures of string theory's many failures, I think, is it never successfully addressed this cosmological constant problem. You'd think if you had a theory of quantum gravity, it would explain precisely what the energy of empty space should be. And we don't have any other theory that addresses that problem either! But if this thing really isn't vacuum energy, then it's something else, then you might be able to find out what it is, and learn and do physics without having to understand quantum gravity."

Some thing is there. I don't have to see it. I don't have to taste or smell it. I don't have to touch it, or even hear it. That's because I have faith in science, to just believe them when they say, "It exists".

Read More »