Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[Dr.Drock]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

After all isn't that what all theory's in science about, all theory's?

Who come up with the idea of a God in the first place?

Because science needs evidence, read up on what scientific theory is. A scientific theory isn't just a question with nothing behind it, I know that's what you evolution-deniers want to think but that simply isn't and has never been the case.

Some uneducated people from thousands of years ago.

So what you're saying evolution is the theory that drives all science theories,thought so.:lol:

Your religion is more important then real science.

You're drunk right? How else could you possibly make such a loony leap?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Look educate yourself.

Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics

Here's your kooky author being completely shredded apart.

http://greengabbro.net/2005/02/14/fun-with-creationist-plate-tectonics/

Green Gabbro

rock out to the apparatus

Fun with Creationist Plate Tectonics
From Left2Right to Pharyngula to you and me: High-Speed Plate Tectonics and Young Earth Creationism. Yow! Before we indulge ourselves in pointless nitpicking, let us address one misconception that seems to have come up among even the reality-based participants in this discussion:

Whatever Wegener might have thought, Pangaea was not “primordial”. Before there was Pangaea (c. 250 million years ago) there was Rodinia (c. 1 billion years ago). Before that, there may or may not have been other supercontinents, Columbia or Pangaea: Episode I or what have you – it’s hard to tell when most of the evidence has been swallowed back into the mantle. But it’s generally accepted that the continents have been stuck together and pulled apart at least twice. Since Genesis only allows for mentions one such event, it’s silly to claim that the modern story of multiple supercontinents was a Biblical hypothesis.*

But we shan’t let that ruin our fun with Do-While Jones, a hammer, and our trusty lumps of silly putty. Oh, no.

Mr. Jones begins with a basic introduction to plate tectonics, which is pretty much accurate. Possibly this is because he cribbed it from Schmidt and Harbert. When he is done being sad that geology textbooks use metaphors (which he calls “New Age”) as a pedagogical device, and fail to credit the not-at-all metaphorical Bible as the progenitor of all knowledge, we see some of his independent assessments of plate tectonics. They’re not awe-inspiring.

Also, “independent” means “pulled out of context from a freshman geology text”:

The three differences between modern theory of Plate Tectonics and the ancient theory of the division of land during the time of Peleg are (1) how it happened, (2) when it happened, and (3) how long it took to happen.

Come to think of it, there are really only two differences. The explanation of how it happened is basically the same for both theories. In the creationist theory, the land was divided by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. In the Plate Tectonic theory, the plates are moved by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. According to one college geology textbook,

Some geologists believe that plate-tectonic movements can be explained by convection in the upper mantle. Other geologists believe that convection occurs in the entire mantle. Thus convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred in the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred any time in the past?

The college geology textbook he mentions is Press and Siever’s Understanding Earth, which we happen to have handy (though it’s the second edition, from 1998, not 1994). It was my first geology textbook ever – awwww! In my copy, the two ellipses in that quote cover a section-break and a full paragraph, and must be read upside-down and backwards for those sentences to occur in the order in which they are quoted. Here’s the quote in situ:

[... an analogy to Silly Putty, to explain how seemingly rigid rock can flow over long timescales.]… at conditions of high pressure and temperature, the mantle behaves as an extremely viscous fluid and “creeps” or flows. Thus, convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred within the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred at any time in the past?

Effects of Convection It turns out that seafloor spreading and plate tectonics are direct evidence of convection at work. The rising hot matter under mid-ocean ridges builds new lithosphere, which cools as it spreads away; eventually, it sinks back into the mantle, where it is resorbed. This is convection; heat is carried from the interior to the surface by the motion of matter.

Some geologists believe that only the upper few hundred kilometers of the mantle are subject to the convection that drives plates, as in Figure 19.10. This would imply that the upper and lower mantles do not mix. Others think that the whole mantle is involved. [...] Regardless of the specifics, geologists now believe that the movement of heat from the interior to the surface as the seafloor spreads is an important mechanism by which Earth has cooled over geologic time.

So maybe there were some changes between editions. But after we strip away disingenuous pull-quotes (why were they from the section on heat flow from the earth’s interior, and not the section on the driving mechanism of plate tectonics?) we see that in the creationist theory, the land is divided by some mysterious force that can never be adequately explained scientifically, while in plate tectonic theory the plates are moved by a not-so-mysterious force which we are understanding better and better every day. Which is basically the same thing as not understanding at all.

The real fun, though, comes when we examine Mr. Jones’s central claim, that plate tectonics happened really really fast. Now’s the time to bring out the Silly Putty and the hammer! Take a lump of Silly Putty and whack it real good with a hammer – if you do it right, the normally pliable putty will shatter. This is the funnest illustration EVAR of the way materials respond very differently to forces applied at short time scales than they do to force applied steadily over time.**

When you’re done playing, take a look at these fabulous folded limestone beds in Pennsylvania and the Palmdale road cut. Try to duplicate those shapes by hitting your silly putty with a hammer (we know you weren’t really done playing).

We could go on to make snarky remarks about the way Do-While Jones confuses the Pacific and Farallon plates. But it’s Valentines Day and we have chocolate chips to melt into a lazy person’s fondue. Young-earther fish will still be in their barrels for shooting another day.

* Compatible with Genesis? Plausibly, if you’re willing to play fast and loose with the timescale. Predicted by it? Not so much.
**A less fun illustration occurs in woodworking: when you’re bending wood, you need to use steady pressure and a great deal of patience, or the wood will break. I could go on, but why?

You and i have a different definition for shredded.

Do you understand the difference between differing opinions ? Natrally you are gonna believe what your side say's and i do the same but what is important is what the evidence shows.

Differing opinions are great.

Fact denying isn't great.

Inventing science based on dogma isn't great.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's odd to me that people think "heaven" and "hell" are "places" anyone "goes to".

If heaven is a "real" place, where is it?

Didn't your Jesus say heaven his kingdom was not of this world?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.

It's a hard sell to think a person would ever think that a puddle could think. Kind of childish if you ask me.

It's an analogy, dumb ass.

I thought we were discussing theory's.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nor is there one for non-living matter creating life.

The equation would still keep going with no end.

1.) Yes there is, but there's no certainty, that's why we're still studying ambiogenesis.
2.) Maybe, maybe not. This is another instance where the religious fundamentalist claims certainty, with zero science backing their certainty, hence why I don't know why you fundamentalist types worry about science when you don't take it seriously.

If that were true why did it stop? Why did non- living matter stop creating life?

You keep asking me to provide a scientific explanation that claims certainty on a subject that no credited scientist claims certainty (ambiogenesis).

We don't know how life started for certain, there is no "why" about it.

 

[Photonic]

1.) Yes there is, but there's no certainty, that's why we're still studying ambiogenesis.
2.) Maybe, maybe not. This is another instance where the religious fundamentalist claims certainty, with zero science backing their certainty, hence why I don't know why you fundamentalist types worry about science when you don't take it seriously.

If that were true why did it stop? Why did non- living matter stop creating life?

You keep asking me to provide a scientific explanation that claims certainty on a subject that no credited scientist claims certainty (ambiogenesis).

We don't know how life started for certain, there is no "why" about it.

They certainly like to claim certainty though.

 

[InDoctriNation]

It's a hard sell to think a person would ever think that a puddle could think. Kind of childish if you ask me.

It's an analogy, dumb ass.

I thought we were discussing theory's.

Yeah, now we're discussing the theory of puddle formation.

You guys enjoy the rest of the discussion. I think I've heard just about all the stupid bullshit I can take today, although this thread has vastly improved my tolerance for it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1.) Yes there is, but there's no certainty, that's why we're still studying ambiogenesis.
2.) Maybe, maybe not. This is another instance where the religious fundamentalist claims certainty, with zero science backing their certainty, hence why I don't know why you fundamentalist types worry about science when you don't take it seriously.

If that were true why did it stop? Why did non- living matter stop creating life?

You keep asking me to provide a scientific explanation that claims certainty on a subject that no credited scientist claims certainty (ambiogenesis).

We don't know how life started for certain, there is no "why" about it.

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

 

[Dr.Drock]

If that were true why did it stop? Why did non- living matter stop creating life?

You keep asking me to provide a scientific explanation that claims certainty on a subject that no credited scientist claims certainty (ambiogenesis).

We don't know how life started for certain, there is no "why" about it.

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

 

[Photonic]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

 

[Photonic]

You keep asking me to provide a scientific explanation that claims certainty on a subject that no credited scientist claims certainty (ambiogenesis).

We don't know how life started for certain, there is no "why" about it.

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

You know why he keeps asking that right?

Because in his mind. Human life coming from nothing= Human life IS nothing, thus his moral framework (which is based on the superiority of humans) would be shattered forever.

You will NEVER convince him of ANYTHING even if you had absolute proof.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

It's a bore. I'm still waiting for someone to address the whole question of what hell is.

I say it's in the mind and it is NOT a "place" one "goes to".

It looks like you boys only want to talk "science" to each other.

How scientific is hell?

 

[Dr.Drock]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

About page 6 when YWC again claimed old goat herders know more about modern science than modern scientists do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

It's a bore. I'm still waiting for someone to address the whole question of what hell is.

I say it's in the mind and it is NOT a "place" one "goes to".

It looks like you boys only want to talk "science" to each other.

How scientific is hell?

Hell is seperation from God.

 

[Photonic]

How did this thread about hell become all about creationism?

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

It's a bore. I'm still waiting for someone to address the whole question of what hell is.

I say it's in the mind and it is NOT a "place" one "goes to".

It looks like you boys only want to talk "science" to each other.

How scientific is hell?

It isn't, and we didn't bring it up.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Because whenever it involves atheists, Christians feel it is necessary to back up their world view with pseudoscience.

It's a bore. I'm still waiting for someone to address the whole question of what hell is.

I say it's in the mind and it is NOT a "place" one "goes to".

It looks like you boys only want to talk "science" to each other.

How scientific is hell?

It isn't, and we didn't bring it up.

OK. I get it. This is no longer a thread about why Christians and atheists don't know what hell is, it's the boys arguing about creationism or evolution.

Gotcha.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

You know why he keeps asking that right?

Because in his mind. Human life coming from nothing= Human life IS nothing, thus his moral framework (which is based on the superiority of humans) would be shattered forever.

You will NEVER convince him of ANYTHING even if you had absolute proof.

Yes part of what makes us humans human is our incredible arrogance. We're the most perfect species to have been around in billions of years, we deserve all the world's resources, we should take over every inch of the earth etc.

I'm not saying my thought process is better, I share some of those attributes I just talked about. If a part of a forest that wildlife is dependent on is torn down to build an orphanage to benefit humans only that couldn't be built elsewhere, I'd view that as a good thing.

It's the arrogance of the human species (myself included) that makes us think we deserve extra, whether it be land/resources/eternal life/a supernatural being that loves certain chosen ones of us/heaven etc.

 

[Photonic]

It's a bore. I'm still waiting for someone to address the whole question of what hell is.

I say it's in the mind and it is NOT a "place" one "goes to".

It looks like you boys only want to talk "science" to each other.

How scientific is hell?

It isn't, and we didn't bring it up.

OK. I get it. This is no longer a thread about why Christians and atheists don't know what hell is, it's the boys arguing about creationism or evolution.

Gotcha.

No girls allowed, didn't you see the sign?

 

[Photonic]

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

You know why he keeps asking that right?

Because in his mind. Human life coming from nothing= Human life IS nothing, thus his moral framework (which is based on the superiority of humans) would be shattered forever.

You will NEVER convince him of ANYTHING even if you had absolute proof.

Yes part of what makes us humans human is our incredible arrogance. We're the most perfect species to have been around in billions of years, we deserve all the world's resources, we should take over every inch of the earth etc.

I'm not saying my thought process is better, I share some of those attributes I just talked about. If a part of a forest that wildlife is dependent on is torn down to build an orphanage to benefit humans only that couldn't be built elsewhere, I'd view that as a good thing.

It's the arrogance of the human species (myself included) that makes us think we deserve extra, whether it be land/resources/eternal life/a supernatural being that loves certain chosen ones of us/heaven etc.

I think that's the big difference, the people that recognize that arrogance.