# Are Science And Religion Compatible?



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 12, 2010)

Jerry Coyne and I had an interesting exchange yesterday that will  appear in a brief video on _USA Today_'s website at some point.   The question related to the compatibility of science and religion.  Can  one accept the modern scientific view of the world and still hold to  anything resembling a traditional belief in God?

  My answer to this question is "yes, of course," for I cannot see my  way to clear to embrace either of the two alternatives -- a  fundamentalist religion prepared to reject science, or a pure scientism  that denies the reality of anything beyond what science can discover.    But my position seems precarious to me in many ways, since I am getting  shot at so vigorously by both sides.

  The events of the past few days have driven this home with great  clarity. At the end of June, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern  Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an address emphasizing the importance  of reading the Genesis creation story literally as a way to protect the  Bible from attacks by science. Such a reading, according to the  persuasive Mohler, demands that we affirm that the "days" of Genesis are  24-hour days, and that the earth, therefore, is less than 10,000 years  old. His audience clapped when he made this point.

  I think Mohler's position has been indefensible for 200 years.  I  find it amazing that such a large group of people -- 100 million  Americans agree with him -- can get themselves onto an intellectual  island and float so far away from modern science that they can't see the  shoreline any longer. But Mohler and his audience are not hillbillies  with straw hats, smoking corncob pipes, drinking moonshine and laughing  about "Darwin's dumb theory about ape-men." They are well-educated and  intelligent.  They have simply decided that the consequences of changing  their traditional views under pressure from science are too great. They  are protecting something they value that feels threatened.  

  Mohler's central point, however, was not that a young earth is  essential or that science must be resisted.  Few Young Earth  Creationists would call themselves anti-science.  His point is that the  Bible must be taken seriously if one wants to be a Christian and, for  Mohler, seriously means literally.  And literally means the earth is  young.  And so much of modern science must be rejected in favor of a  literal reading of Genesis.

  Jerry Coyne, who wrote the excellent _Why Evolution Is True_ and runs a  blog of the same name, wants to know how in the world Mohler's  religion can ever be compatible with science.  Framing the question like  this closes the discussion. Young Earth Creationism is completely  incompatible with science and we can all agree on that.  

  But I don't think this comparison is fair. Juxtaposing  "empirical  science" with "revealed religion" in this particular way seems  unbalanced.  Mohler's views have broad popular appeal, to be sure, but  they don't represent the best in Christian thinking.  Few Catholics or  Anglicans, for example, would agree with him.  If we want to make a  comparison with "populist" religion, we should use "populist" science.   The great masses of religious "faithful" should be juxtaposed with the  great masses of people who "believe" in science but are not leading  professionals.  What do you suppose "science" would look like, were it  defined by these "believers"?  The physics would be Aristotelian;  astrology and aliens would be accepted as real; General Relativity would  be unknown; quantum mechanics would be perceived as a way to influence  the world with your mind, as we occasionally read on these blogs. 

  Here is the kicker: all these people would have had far more  education in science than the typical religious believer has in  theology.  Science, as "lived and practiced by real people" who  "believe" it, is quite different from the science promoted by the  intellectuals in this conversation

  The observations of science do indeed trump revealed truth about the  world. Just ask Galileo. But empirical science also trumps other  empirical science. Einstein supplanted Newton. This did not undermine  the scientific enterprise, however, even though it showed that the  science of that time was in error. 

  In the same way, modern theology has replaced traditional theology.  The mere fact that old-fashioned ideas persist does not mean that they  can be legitimately used in an argument that religion is incompatible  with science.
  If "science" is allowed to toss its historical baggage overboard when  its best informed leaders decide to do so, even though the ideas  continue to circulate on main street, then surely religion can do the  same.

Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Are Science and Religion Compatible?


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 12, 2010)

Another interesting article. Whilst I do not subscribe to creationism I do find one of the key concepts, i.e that of Irreducible Complexity, quite fascinating

"Science, as "lived and practiced by real people" who  "believe" it, is  quite different from the science promoted by the  intellectuals in this  conversation"

A nice quote that reflects some of the discussion on the "Is there a God thread"

As I have already posted on that thread, personally, I have no qualms accepting both Scientific and Religious views of The Creation, as to me they represent different perspectives on the same thing


----------



## otilia (Jul 12, 2010)

Yes, a very good essay, but I consider that they are different perspectives, faith, religion is one path  and science is a completely different one.
Kant (modern philosopher of XVI century) already described that human nature tends to go far beyond its ratio can explain, and I was taught as roman catholic student, that with your ratio you can learn or reach to the assumption that there is a God, Energy, or whatever you want to name it... but the God reveals Himself, and that is what faith is.
Though I do not follow or practice catholicism now, I still belive that..... and whatever you call God... there is One, with as many names as you want Him to have.  
And it does not go against science... because the Bible is written with signs and simbles.... cannot take it literarily.....it´s full of metaphoras....we should read Carl Jung.... to understand what the Genesis means.... and so many of the stories Bible tells us....

thanks,
Otilia Ji
:happykaur:


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jul 12, 2010)

Personally, I could not accept any religion that compelled me to check my brains at the door.  I believe that having a functioning brain is the Hukam of Vaheguru and I am expected to use it.  I could not accept a religion that compelled me to (pretend to) believe things that I know to be false.  I also believe that any Supreme Being worth worshiping does not play silly mind games with us, such as planting fossils that appear to be millions of years old, but are really only a few thousand - or a few hundred - years old.  (I am told the reason for this is to test one's faith.  I also don't believe the Deity tests our faith.)   

As for creation being measured in days (mind you, before the creation of the sun or the earth), I do not see how anybody with even the IQ of a dead hedgehog could believe such a thing.  (OK, a test of faith, right?)  In fact, my medical caregiver one day asked me if I believed God created the world in 7 days and in His own image.  She could only smile that superior smirk at me when I said, "No and no."  I didn't elaborate, of course, because my religion tells me to respect all people's religion, no matter my personal opinion of it.  I believe that creation is an ongoing process that began when it began (probably at the Big Bang, if that theory is correct) and will end if/when it ends and Akal Purakh isn't a "he" and doesn't have an image and likeness to create me in.

People should be free to believe whatever they believe, of course and to practice their religion freely within certain limits.  (Some practices, such as sacrificing virgins or adulteresses need to be prohibited).  I do get seriously concerned when the law requires religious teachings - such as Creationism - in the schools.  I wonder how a science teacher is able to teach something s/he absolutely believes is erroneous.  Wouldn't that push her/his integrity to the breaking point?  Or would the Christian fundamentalists be satisfied with it being taught as, "Some people believe..."? I seriously doubt it.  

When I was a child, my mother's family insisted I be educated in the Roman Catholic Church.  This was in the days when Mass was in Latin and priests were almost God and little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned.  Fortunately for my sanity, I lived with my Dad in a Sikh home and thus was presented with an alternative to the nonsense I was being taught.

So...does science need to be at odds with religion? Of course not, if one chooses a religion that doesn't call on its adherents to believe unscientific things.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 12, 2010)

QFT. The theory of natural selection is official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, a Christian faith.

Now that poses a different problem altogether. Should we rejoice because a scientific theory is officially sanctioned by the Roman Church? Does it indicate that at least one battle between science and religion has been won? Or....should we be asking ourselves how anything in science, including the theory of natural selection, should be accepted as a doctrine. Theories of science are always subject to revision. 

It seems to me that natural selection, creationism and intelligent design have been used as a wedge by both sides in this argument about science and religion, each army having its agenda foremost  in mind. Some scientists and most religionists have made natural selection, creationism and intelligent design "red herrings" in any number of conversations regarding the existence of God, evolution, and whether religion is good or bad for society. For shame on the scientists who have introduced logical fallacies into the dialog, and on religionists who are seeking ways to subvert the logic of science.  Science and religion do best in an attitude of mutual respect.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 13, 2010)

Hi *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Tejwant Singh*<!-- google_ad_section_end --> and all commenters.<?"urn:fficeffice" />
           I read this article & the comments and I found them anti-Christian. That’s nothing new! First of all I want to say that many commenters and writer/poster are ignorant of many things, like Creation Science, Holy Bible and Christianity.  
<o> </o>
Let me write about the article. As a Bible believing Christian I believe Christianity and True- Science can co-exist. As I said the writer and many commenters are ignorant of Creationism. When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable, if you doubt my argument you may search it. Just because something seems to be billions of yrs old it doesn’t mean it is! Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them. Creationists are not garden school kids they are also PhD holders and Scientists from all fields of science. Many creationists are well known for their work, and their position in the community of scientists. The matter is that only you guys don’t know who they are because of your ignorance. Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang neither Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments, Creationists can refute them all.
<o> </o>
Today everybody tries to prove that Christianity is anti-science. But the fact is that it is not!! No creationist would call himself anti-science because they themselves are using science to prove their point. No Bible teacher would ever say that Bible (whole Bible) must be taken literally or allegorically. Bible is literal where it says it is, and it is allegoric where it says it is. No Creationist or Christian reject true or established modern science. If you think you are right and creationists are wrong then why don’t you have debate with them? Your problem is that you only listen / look Evolutionists and never creationists. If you are sincere then you must look both sides (without partiality) and then conclude. Young Earth Creationism and Christianity are completely compatible with established modern science. 
<o> </o>
Well, I am not a Roman Catholic but I want to ask *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Mai Harinder Kaur*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->, “where did she leaned that little girls would burn eternally in hell if they questioned”? When you know nothing about Christianity how could you say such things? 
I also want to say here that the Holy Bible is the only oldest book in the world which is scientifically correct, though it is not a science book, nor was it written to teach science lessons but The Way i.e. Jesus Christ. Bible also promotes education and inspires to increase wisdom; the whole “Book of Proverbs” is dedicated for it.
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.” 
                                                        --  Dr. Donald DeYoung. Ph.D. (Physicist)
“Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.”  --   Hank Hanegraaff
If you want to see whether Bible is scientifically correct or not, visit my site http://ktzion.weebly.com/science-and-the-holy-bible.htmlscienceandthebible.htm .


----------



## Aulakh (Jul 13, 2010)

Waheguru ji ki Fateh
Brother Tejwant Singh has raised a very significant issue and has also answered his questions partialy. 
Let me start the dialogue with a quote
"Knowledge is one ,its division into subjects is concession for human weakness".
Now why we want to compare and differentiate between science and religion?
If we have already taken positions then there is no point in discussion, and according to me the situation is really like this.
The point in disscussion is that of Christianity and not all religions.For example if we talk about Sikhism then many questions are already answered--Gurbani says that no one can tell when the world was created ,we have been in other Yonies(kayi janam bhay keet patanga)-Gurbani  does not cntradict the theory of evolution and reveals the creation of world out of Dhundukara.
Actually out of such discussions we intend to establish our superiority and not understand others point of view,we really donot listen to others.
Science and religion do not clash with each other;their tools are different,they are trying to understand nature with their own tools.The Scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics were the ones who could feel the all prevading energy.
Please let me say that these are my views after being a student of science for 40 years and I do not  intend to hurt the feelin of any one;I have been brought up by traditionl sikh parents and I am a firm believer of Gurbani and a baptised Sikh,my science has never shaken my belief but rather confirmed it.
With love to all the reders of SPN
Gian Singh Aulakh(Dr)


----------



## sssobti (Jul 13, 2010)

Aulakh said:


> Waheguru ji ki Fateh
> Brother Tejwant Singh has raised a very significant issue and has also answered his questions partialy.
> Let me start the dialogue with a quote
> "Knowledge is one ,its division into subjects is concession for human weakness".
> ...


Respected DR.Gian singh ji,
Guru fateh. I really appreciate ur views & fully believe in it.Gurbani is really 100% scientific. The fault lies only with our perception. May god bless us with the right PERCEPTION , so that we shall never doubt the practical imlementation of gurbani.
        guru rakha,     
Sukhvinder singh


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 13, 2010)

Dear Bittu Ji

Thanks for providing another viewpoint

I would like to reply to some of the issues you have raised in your post:

_When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable<?"urn:fficeffice" />_​<o> </o>​That is very true but it is not wildly inaccurate either. Which it would have to be to close the gap of billions and thousands of years​<o> </o>​<o> </o>​_Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them._​<o> </o>​I would very much like to learn more…perhaps you could direct me to where I can find these proofs. Also, it would be good to know what your understanding of these proofs are​<o> </o>​_Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang _​Very true as one is the domain of Biology whereas the other is the domain of theoretical physics​<o> </o>​_neither <?xml::ffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments, _​Personally, I would not call a theory that can explain at least 95% of what we can observe in nature today as useless​<o> </o>​<o> </o>​_Creationists can refute them all._​As noted in an earlier post, I agree the concept of “Irreducible Complexity” merits further investigation​

_Young Earth Creationism and Christianity are completely compatible with established modern science._​Not with carbon dating or the geological record. Despite what you see in the movies, to my knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Dinosaurs and man ever co-existed. If you can provide some evidence contrary to that, I would very much like to see it.​But one would expect primitive man would have been more likely to have been eaten by the Dinosaurs than the other way round!​<o> </o>​Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31383
_I also want to say here that the Holy Bible is the only oldest book in the world which is scientifically correct_​I’m afraid I will disagree with you flatly on that one and suggest you do some research on the Vedas which very easily pre-date The Bible​<o> </o>​<o> </o>​_If you want to see whether Bible is scientifically correct or not, visit my site http://ktzion.webs.com/scienceandthebible.htm ._​<!-- google_ad_section_end -->I was compelled to make these points for now but I will look at this website and post again​<o> </o>​We are here to debate, discuss and learn from each other. Maybe I am reading things wrong but I would respectfully suggest that the tone and some of your comments were not merited in light of earlier posts​


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 13, 2010)

I would humbly request that forum members avoid using the Times Roman font as it is very small and therefore difficult to read. Use arial font if possible. Thank you.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jul 13, 2010)

Bittu ji asked me:


> Well, I am not a Roman Catholic but I want  to ask *Mai  Harinder Kaur*, “where did she leaned that little girls would burn  eternally in hell if they questioned”? When you know nothing about  Christianity how could you say such things?


The person who told me that was was Father Jacques LeBlanc in Montreal, Quebec, Canada who was trying to prepare me for the Sacrament of Holy Confirmation in about 1963-4.  I insisted that he explain some dogma to me in a way that made sense and when he couldn't, he responded that little girls who question the truths of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ himself would burn eternally in hell.  From birth to age 12, I attended Mass every Sunday with my mother's family and from age 6, I attended Holy Catechism classes twice a week. I have since been evangelised by Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, among others.  I have several times read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.  I am not a biblical scholar, but I have studied that religion.  It is not accurate to say I "know nothing about Christianity."

I refuse to get into a debate about the veracity of Christianity or any other religion.  I have no problem with your belief in whatever you believe in.  I believe something differentanimatedkhandaand when asked, I will express my opinion on these things.  I do not argue.  I have my say and then shut up.  I am only answering Bittu ji because s/he asked me directly.  icecreamkaur


----------



## Archived_member13 (Jul 13, 2010)

Gurfateh ji, 

Though their is lot of good things which have been stated regarding Science but the main question how do you prove it that science is matches with religion, Mr. Tejwant Singh article is quite informative but Gurbani sahib message has already been given 600 years but  Nasa scientists has discovered in last 5 years or so in their research they
found that before the creation of universe their is was no sky it was absolutely nothing.
But here is the answer-
There was no earth or sky; there was only the infinite Command of His Hukam. There was no day or night, no moon or sun; God sat in primal, profound Samaadhi. ||1|| There were no sources of creation or powers of speech, no air or water. There was no creation or destruction, no coming or going. There were no continents, nether regions, seven seas, rivers or flowing water. ||2|| There were no heavenly realms, earth or nether regions of the underworld. There was no hell or heaven, no birth or death, no coming or going in reincarnation. ||3||       ( SGGS)

Now which religous scripture can describe the conditions before Big bang theory but 
Gurbani does and many scientists have admitted the message of Gurbani.
In many religious scriptures lot of things been said about science like Torah, Bible  or
Quran many have been trying to prove their side of their storyone way to ther other but when knowledge ofGurmat shines their are no questions left is their anything more to prove Gurbani does not talk about science one should be firm beleiver in SGGS and 
realise the treasure which is hidden inside SGGS cannot be found in any other religous
scripture. 

Regards

Gurveen Singh


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 13, 2010)

Dear Bittu Ji

I have now had an opportunity to view the material on your website

I must commend you on the scale and scope of your work here and I will not deny that I was genuinely impressed by some of your findings.

That said, overall, I still feel that it is possible to have an alternative interpretation of some of these passages. I have some examples below with specific comments. For the benefit of those reading this post, quotations from your website are in Italics

_1 Palaeontology

Dinosaur references in The Bible:
“It [Behemoth] is said to be the chief of the ways of God”_

What does that mean and how can it be an attribute to describe a Dinosaur? Why would a Biblical scholar have described a Dinosaur in that way?

_He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens._

If we are still talking about Dinosaurs, then these would have to be pretty gigantic reeds and ferns


_2 Anthropology

We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men._

Yes we do and there aren't many that show men and Dinosaurs together. There are some but not many.


_3 Astronomy

People often have this erroneous notion that the night sky visible to them is the same as is to all other nations. But the stars visible in the northern and the southern hemispheres are entirely different from each other. Man discovered this only in the modern era, but Bible gave us the same information over 3500 years ago. It says that the Lord has divided the stars unto the nations.*_

Bit of a sweeping statement there. What about Stonehenge and the Pyramids, both of which demonstrate clear knowledge of Mathematics and Astronomy


_Red Giant
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.” (Joel 2:31),
*“The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the LORD come:” (Act. 2:20)
*This is the exact description of Red Giant. Today our Sun is too bright (white) but when its life will come to an end it will darken (Dark Red colored) and become Red Giant(about 2000 to 3000 Kelvin), more luminous and it will expand outward many times its original size. As we know Moon receives its light from the Sun, when Sun will become*Red Giant, Moon will also reflect Red light.*_

Actually, I would say “the moon into blood” accurately describes a lunar eclipse and this pheneomenon is very common. The sun will not “darken” as you describe it here. I note you have also commented on the “Giant” aspect of the term “Red Giant” The sun will indeed expand to many times its current size and completely engulf the Earth and the Moon. So there will be no Red Moon as you describe it when this happens.

You note White Dwarf is a stage after Red Giant yet these quotes are taken from different books of the Bible that don't follow a Chronological order. 



As a whole this was a stimulating read; thanks for the link.

Some of your analysis is genuinely impressive. For example, concerning the Physical properties of the Earth and other astronomical references

But I also feel you have chosen to interpret some quotations in a way that complements your theory which is fine.

In a similar fashion I could quite easily find quotes that I would argue appear to support my beliefs and views. For example:

Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 11:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so

I could argue that “Let the Earth bring forth” = Evolution. I would humbly suggest that such an interpretation is no more or less valid than those you have presented on your website. 

Here's another:

Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 20:
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...  

This is an accurate description of Evolution which states life began in the Oceans

I have made some observations above based on just the first few sections of your analysis. Given sufficient time, I daresay I could make some similar comment on most of the text in your analysis. But I am not going to as I think I have adequately demonstrated my position in this matter

I would urge other readers of this thread to folllow the link and read (and appreciate) the analysis and draw their own conclusions

Apologies for the length of this post


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 13, 2010)

Is science and religion compatible?
I think Mai Harinder Kaur ji's beautiful reply is quite illustrative of  the importance of acknowledging the meaning of "science", "compatibility" and ESPECIALLY, "religion", and quite illustrative of how modern people view religion.
For her its choosing a religion (way of life) that does not compete with science (worldview, knowledge, truth). I think this is a wonderful idea. It allows for the individual to progress, and allows the religion (way of life) to be updated with time.

However, for others, religion (worldview, knowledge, truth and way of life) may compete with science (worldview, knowledge, truth). They might also see religion as a tradition that is not to be given up... here science and religion are at odds. Not only that but these guys have become an obstacle from any progress they might make by improving their system. Sadly, these people are the most influential of the two, in terms of politics and power.

This raises the questions:
What about the incompatibility with regards to power? Who should we   listen to when passing bills and laws? 

Consider these questions, these have been the BIG debates of our time! They have only arisen only because of the latter scenario of the two.
Should condoms be made available for wider use? Should abortion be allowed? Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

-------------------Refuting creationists-----------------------
Carbon dating is quite inaccurate at a large scale and the geologists know that. So they often combine it with other dating methods. It turns out that Carbon dating correlates with other dating methods, so its still used.

Jerry Coyne on his book: Why Evolution is True?
YouTube - 'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009

1-33 Video Series by ThunderF00t The First one is Here:
The others can be found in related videos.
YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)


----------



## Sukhmani (Jul 14, 2010)

I must say there were many interesting thoughts said in this thread, however i d like to share my point of view, maybe from a little bit different side.
So i come to the original article which regards to Christianity. I think that the major issue is the time when the Torah and the Bible were written. They deal with creation and constitution of the world and their writers were working with the knowledge of the world available at that time. They tried to deal with the world in its complexity. So they inevitably come to confrontation with the knowledge of current science and i myself think that Christian churches must have a problem with it how to explain discrepancies now when something else science says and something else is written in their Holy Scripture... the extreme of this effort to cope with it is to proclaim inevitability of literal reading and acceptance of scientific knowledge as maybe heresy in some sects and denominations and waging of an imaginary war against science...

From this point of view Sikhism has, i would say, an advantage... because Sikh's Holy Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib ji, is concentrated not so much on constitution of the world but on man and his role in the world, purpose of his life here and his journey to Waheguru ji. The principles set by Guru ji are still up to date in this context because they are dealing with relations among people, man himself and his relation to Almighty and not with knowledge of creation of the world and ritual practices which could look somehow oldfashioned, useless and irational from current point of view as we can find in the Bible... but the fact is that Christianity cannot deny validity of sentences written in the Bible so easily because of a very simple reason ... it is holy for Christians and should be respected as it is...


----------



## eropa234 (Jul 14, 2010)

SGGS is a book of science in the sense that it teaches and encourages us to know the truth through the power of questioning. Its not a Granth about Physics, Chemistry or Astronomy etc, but the principle of acquiring this scientific knowledge is also the same. In our case there is no question of compatibility as a matter of fact the two support each other.

Some religions that have described Astronomy in their scriptures are in odds with the modern science and are having much difficulty reconciling the two and some deny modern Astronomy they claim that its false. You can still find people who believe the earth is flat based on their scriptures.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 15, 2010)

Dear *Seeker9*,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
*Some **Creationist Sites*​http://www.icr.org, http://www.answersingenesis.org, http://www.creationists.org/
*Radiocarbon Dating*​http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
*The Fossil Record*​http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-fosilrecord.htm
http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Tight-Fold-and-Clastic-Dikes-Rapid-Deposition-Deformation.pdf
http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-did-it-take-deposit-geologic-strata/
*Age of earth*​http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
http://www.icr.org/article/sedimentary-structure-shows-young-earth/
*Darwin’s theory*​Darwin’s theory does not explain anything rather it contradicts logical scientific facts.
Darwin in his book “_On the Origin of Species__” described/proposed a theory called _natural selection_  (_survival of the fittest) means, "only the fittest organisms will prevail." According to Evolutionists ancient humans were helpless, witless; they did not have nails (like animals), sharp teeth, or running speed to protect themselves. Human baby also take too much time to grow, to stand on feet and hence cannot protect itself as other animals do.  And if you place such a human in this theory then it will create problem. Because according to this theory only fittest will live. Human was/is not fittest if you place him in a jungle he cannot /could not protect himself (according evolutionists, at least human brain is developed today, so he can think and do something but those ancient men were not developed).  So, if Darwin’s theory is right then it would be impossible for humans to prevail, and live till this day.
Also Ape and Human DNA similarity do not prove common ancestry. Evolutionists say that Chimpanzee and Human DNA is 98% identical (though today evolutionist scientist found that it is much less that 98%) that means it is a proof of evolution and common ancestry. But they hide other things, We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly (*Drosophila species*), 50% of our DNA with Mice, *75 % *of our DNA with* nematode worms, *33% of our DNA with Daffodil (flower plant) etc. Why don’t these evolutionists say, cabbage, fruit fly, worm, potato, flower, mice, horse etc are our ancestors?  
Evolution also cannot explain complexity of organs, Ex. Eye. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/vestigial-organs
Furthermore Darwin’s evolution encourages/preaches *Racism*! That’s why Communists & Nazis used Darwin’s evolution to justify their position of superior race.
useful links for further study.
http://overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Et_6oDbTRuUJ:www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240+ape+and+human+dna+matches+99%25&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vEEh2mB0UgUJ:www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070+ape+and+human+dna+matches+99%25&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
http://www.truthseekers.ca/bible-truths/evolution-and-chimpanzee-dna.htm
*Proofs Dinosaurs and humans co-existed*​http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm, http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted.html, http://www.dinosaursandman.com/, http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html
By the way I didn’t say Bible is the Oldest book in the world, I said Bible is the Oldest book in the world which is scientifically accurate. I have no problem to accept Vedas as much older books though dates are disputed and they contradict established modern science. My point was not which is older, my point was which is scientifically correct. You will find it on my site _*http://ktzion.webs.com/scienceandthebible.htm* _


----------



## Bittu (Jul 15, 2010)

Dear Seeker9,ffice<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75"  coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" oreferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe"  filled="f" stroked="f">  <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>  <v:formulas>   <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>   <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>   <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>   <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>   <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>   <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>   <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>   <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>   <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>   <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>   <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>   <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>  </v:formulas>  <vath o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>  <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"  alt="http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/images/smilies/redface.gif" style='width:16pt;  height:16pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>  <v:imagedata src="file://localhost/Users/widener/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image001.gif"   o:title="//www.sikhphilosophy.net/images/smilies/redface.gif"/>  <v:textbox style='mso-rotate-with-shape:t'/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->

1 Palaeontology
It is absolutely possible that the description of Behemoth in the Bible is about Dinosaur. I think you haven’t read its description otherwise you won’t ask this question. As I wrote on my site no other animal matches this description. But you have problem with the following verse:-
“He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.” (Job 40:21) 
From Tiger to Elephant almost all animals spent some time in the water. So, no wonder Dinosaurs too did that!! It is said that, “he lieth under shady trees (name of the tree is not given, it may be Lotus, Vallisneria americana,Potamogeton amplifolius,Nuphar variegate,Nymphaea odorata, or some other big leafy plant), in the covert of reed (Yes absolutely as you said there is Giant reed (Arundo donax) http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/48) and FENS (low marshy land) not FERNS (flowerless plant) as you wrote. According to scientists plants and trees (not all) were also giant like animals in the ancient times because of environment of that time. 
3 Astronomy
About Stonehenge, nobody knows who built it, what was its purpose there are many speculations about it like, “it was a temple made for the worship of ancient earth deities. It has been called an astronomical observatory for marking significant events on the prehistoric calendar. Others claim that it was a sacred site for the burial of high-ranking citizens from the societies of long ago.” But NO one is sure for their speculation. Still, it’s a marvel of ancient engineering.
About Pyramids, yes everybody accepts that they are masterpiece of engineering. But I wrote about Mats on my site, i.e. value of Pi. Egyptians calculated value of Pi as 3.16 which is wrong as were Babylonians Pi = 3.12. It was Archimedes who calculated Pi = 3.14 in 220 B.C. But Bible in 960 B.C gives value of Pi = 3.14 much before Archimedes (220 B.C.) who is credited for calculating it correctly. 
Red Giant
The verses of Bible I mentioned here for dying Sun, all refers to the End Time, i.e. before the Judgement Day (before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come). 
I may be wrong on this matter of Sun.
Well, the matter is debated whether Earth will engulf in the Red Giant or not. “Although scientists agree on the sun’s future, they disagree about what will happen to Earth.” (Scientific American Magazine, September 2008). God created this universe He has complete control over His Creation. He will not let Sun consume Earth.
Sun may darken (Red Giant {Dark Red colored}) as I said because Hebrew word in the first verse used is “chôshek” and Greek word in the second verse used is “skotos” both means“shadiness” another Hebrew word is used in first two verses of the (Black Dwarf) is “qâdar” means “to be ashy,” “to be black”, third verse “châshak” means “to be ashy,” “to be black”. The word used for Red Giant is different from that of Black dwarf. So, it’s entirely possible.
As I said these verses of the Bible are talking about End and not a common lunar eclipse. By the way the verse says “Moon like Blood” while in lunar eclipse it is reddish. And Sun will not engulf Earth and Moon in a second it will take millions of years according to your evolutionist scientists (I don’t believe millions or billions yrs). So, it is surely possible that there will be Blood like Moon. 
These verses have nothing to do with the chronological order of the Bible since they all are prophecies of the End Time (before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come). Biblical books are arranged as Law, Writings/Poetry and Prophets. Oldest book (I’m not talking about events) of the Bible is not Genesis it is the “Book of Job” 18th book of the Bible.
Recently scientists discovered a planet that survived its parent stars red giant. 
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1633-scientists-39-good-news-earth-may-survive-sun-39-s-demise-in-5-billion-years 
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070912_rgiant_planet.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1281159020070912
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html 
You wrote:-
“Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 11:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so

I could argue that “Let the Earth bring forth” = Evolution.
Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 20: 
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life... 

This is an accurate description of Evolution which states life began in the Oceans” 
The verses you quote do not support your evolutionist beliefs or views,it’s impossible because the Bible teaches instant creation while Evolution teaches slow development of billions of years. Bible teaches God created them whereas Evolution teaches there is no God no Creation. You can see it if you read that whole chapter.
Thank You.

 <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
 <!--[endif]-->
  <!--EndFragment-->


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 15, 2010)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Bittu Ji[/FONT]


 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Contrary to what you have said, it is my personal view that there is plenty of room for God in Science. As noted in an earlier post, Evolution and Big Bang theories have all been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whether or not your particular Church chooses to acknowledge this is a matter for you alone. I would add that a lot of religions and spiritual paths go into varying levels of detail about how The Creation came about. Christianity does not have a monopoly on this.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]May I also point out that you are posting on a forum which, amongst other things, is dedicated to increasing knowledge and appreciation of the Sikh scriptures. Those Scriptures do not state Science is everything and God does not exist.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Re Stonehenge – it's not a question of purpose. Its clear astronomical precision is not for dispute and even to this day, it attracts hundreds of visitors every year to watch the sun rise on the Summer Solstice. That is real.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Re Pi – you stated a cubit is 18 to 22cm. That is a range of 4cm and all values within that range would not give you the answer of 3.14. So, whilst your explanation was fascinating, I have to say I prefer the fixed and proven mathematical precision of the Great Pyramid of Giza[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I would also humbly suggest that other proofs you have illustrated using a numerological approach are far from scientific[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Survival of the fittest – As the Dinosaurs had already died a long time ago, humans were in a much better position to survive[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Human Ape DNA – yes it may be much less than 98% but how much less????[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis – I have read Genesis. In fact I have read the entire Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. My point was that it is a matter of interpretation and I maintain my interpretation is no less valid than yours.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Re some of your links: [/FONT] 

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Answers in Genesis – I have come across this site before.. It's an interesting read and one I would recommend to readers of this thread.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Planet surviving Red Giant –Yes, I was aware of this.  The articles state the planet started out at roughly the same distance as Earth and then drifted away. The planet was also 3x the size of Jupiter which would make it 33x the size of Earth so not the same.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Finally, re your clarification of The Bible being the oldest book to contain references to Science, thanks but I did not misunderstand you the first time. And I stand by what I say about the Vedas. I won't post any links here. All I would say is Google “Science in the Vedas” and pick any one of the 348,000 results that are returned to begin to expand your knowledge in this area.[/FONT]

 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thanks again and I look forward to your responses as I am enjoying this stimulating debate
rangesingh:
[/FONT]


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 15, 2010)

Admin note:

I will be reformatting posts that are written in fonts that are so small that their message is nearly invisible to the naked eye. Thank you.


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 15, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> I would humbly request that forum members avoid using the Times Roman font as it is very small and therefore difficult to read. Use arial font if possible. Thank you.



Dear Narayanjot Kaur Ji

I fear I  must have some gremlins in my machine as I have tried twice to edit my latest post and it is coming up in a larger and bolder font than I had intended

Not sure if that is how it will appear to others but if there is anything you can do to assist, I would be very grateful

Thank you

Seeker9 ji

The same has happened to me many times, especially when I upload news articles for forum interest. The problem lies with the html code in the original document. There is a way to see it, and then change it. However, that is too complicated to describe in this thread. Like telling you how to tie a turban without pictures. It can be done, but with difficulty. So when the problem arises, I don't have any personal problem fixing it. It means a lot that you did make the effort and try.


----------



## Lee (Jul 16, 2010)

Indeed they are.

I'm as sure that Darwins theory of evolution by means of natural selection is correct, well as sure as we can be of anything.  Geology gives us an indication of the earths age which again seems pretty spot on to me, and cosmology  does the same for the age of the universe.

When scieance and religion do not agree then, I would say this is due to misinterpratation of scripture.

The Christian church though has some very hard desicions to make.  I can understand why they must stick to their guns, I belive it a grave error though.  Christianity must change or it will die.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 16, 2010)

Dear <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->*Mai Harinder Kaur*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->,
           You said you have read whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, did you find anywhere that girls will burn if they ask question? from your writing I think that priest was joking, and if not you had to ask him Biblical reference!! Dont say anything just because somebody said that, you must have proof!! 
Yes you are free to believe what you want, I am not forcing you to believe what I believe!!
By the way thans for your opinion.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 16, 2010)

Dear <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->*gurveen1*,
What you quote from Guru Granth Sahib is nothing new!!!! Bible thousands of year before Adi Grant, Described it. <?"urn:fficeffice" />
<o> </o>
“In the beginning God *created* the heaven and the earth.” (*Gen 1:1*)
בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ
Bereshit *BARA* Elohim Et HaShmayim Ve’at HaAretz.
Bara means “creation *out of nothing*”
<o> </o>
Read Whole Chapter of Genesis. 
<o> </o>
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (*John 1:1-3*)
<o> </o>
I know it’s a Sikh site so, it’s natural everybody is praising only Sikh scriptures!! 
<o> </o>
I have a question; If God is Akal (Eternal) then how does Adi Granth says that God CREATED Himself? Page 113:4, Page 250:1, Page 291:3,Page 509:1 etc.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 16, 2010)

*Dear **Seeker9*,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
                  I am not imposing my beliefs on you or anyone. As you believe in Guru Grantha Sahib, I believe in the Bible. You are free to choose, that’s how God made us with free will. 
If you want to say Evolution and Big Bang theories have all been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church that’s why it must be true and I/we must accept it, then why don’t you accept other Roman Catholic Doctrines & beliefs?
As I said before I’m talking Creation account from the bible because I believe in it! I believe it is true. You are free to choose. 
*Stonehenge**: - **I don’t say that ancient people were witless! Surely they were knowledgeable people. All are agree that its (Stonehenge) primary use most probably was as temple, not as observatory though it is *astronomical precision as the *Sun Temple of Ramesses II.  Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Mayans, Arabs all did have mathematical, astronomical knowledge but they were not entirely correct in their science. *
*Pi:** - **I think you did not read my writing well. I agree that *all values within the range of 4 cm would not give the answer of 3.14. But I wrote on my site, as the Temple was built by Hebrews (Israeli) and its description also was written by a Hebrew (Israeli) so, we will have to count it according to Hebrew measurement not ours!! And that measurement I gave there on my site!! Therefore calculation is not wrong!!!! It’s proven for you! You also read half portion of that article on Pi. I also gave value of Pi and e from the two verses of Creation. First verse of Genesis and first verse of John. Please check it. Of course I too believe Egyptians were great engineers, but I was talking about Pi. The value of which we still use as 22/7 (approximate) in which great Egyptians were Wrong! As the whole world was! But the Bible gave it right as it gave of e. Here is proven mathematical precision.    
I would like to know which proofs I have illustrated using a numerological approach which are far from scientific?
I have Given proofs that *Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed*. Dinosaurs did not die long before humans came into existence. I think you have not taken my previous posts seriously.
But still for arguments sake if we consider Dinosaurs died long before Human came into existence, that doesn’t give humans safety! For there were many other Giant and average size *carnivorous animals who would have finished Humans! Also I want to point out here that the population of Humans of that time was very rare on the other hand these **carnivorous animals were* *too many in number and of many different species they could do their job very easily as I said according to evolution theory humans did not have sophisticated brain, or any protective thing, they did not have horns, sharp teeth, pointed nails, running speed, nothing!! And also all other animal babies, they grow very fast, but human baby take at least one and half year just to stand on its feet, it is the most helpless baby in the world! It couldn’t protect itself neither human could protect their baby in the ancient wilderness.*
*Human & Ape DNA:-*
*You are not a serious seeker**; if you were you would have read carefully what I wrote and checked links I posted. I don’t think I need to explain it here. I would just say, read my previous posts carefully with the articles I referred to (see links).* 
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Et_6oDbTRuUJ:www.apologeticspress.o rg/articles/240+ape+and+human+dna+matches+99%25&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vEEh2mB0UgUJ:www.apologeticspress.o rg/articles/2070+ape+and+human+dna+matches+99%25&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
http://www.truthseekers.ca/bible-truths/evolution-and-chimpanzee-dna.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp 
*At last, I want to ask you, “Why are you sticking to Apes?” Apes are not only living things whose DNA matches with us. I’m quoting from my previous post ,”*We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly (*Drosophila species*), 50% of our DNA with Mice, *75 %*of our DNA with*nematode worms, *33% of our DNA with Daffodil (flower plant) etc. Why don’t these evolutionists (& you) say, cabbage, fruit fly, worm, potato, flower, mice, horse etc are our ancestors?”* What does it mean that Human DNA matches with other living organisms? Does it mean Evolution? NO not at all!! It clearly means that the Designer, the Creator of us all is ONE, that’s why we find similarity in His creation. *
*Evolution promotes Racism.  Whereas Bible says we all are descended from same mother and father i.e. Adam & Eve. And thats what science has confirmed today.*
*Adolf Hitler, **Mein Kampf* :- "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile." 
You interpreted the Bible your way but that’s clearly misinterpretation because Bible itself does not support your interpretation. I doubt you ever read Bible because if you had read it you won’t say such thing.
I know what science is there and what is not in Vedas! You cannot compare Vedas with Bible.
I did not say that Sikh scriptures state Science is everything and God does not exist. I said it to you; you believe in the Evolution and according to Evolution God do not Exist & Science is everything!!  
I also said that Bible’s message is not Science its Salvation. 
I think this debate will never end, so I think you should study Creationism and Bible.
Still I will look 4 your responce. Thanks for all your responces.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 16, 2010)

Bittu ji, if you are ready to accept reality check out my previous videos to find refutations to creationism.

Here's evidence from Molecular Biology on how we descended from apes. Their is evidence from morphology and fossils as well. Evidence from all these fields beautifully come together to assure us that we have descended from apes.
YouTube- Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

and if you believe in the story of Noah then this is also for you:
YouTube- Richard Dawkins Debunks Noah's Ark

Enjoy!


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 16, 2010)

Bittu ji

I am wondering, before this conversation continues much longer in the direction of posting and counter-posting links to this and that, one thing. What is the connection you are making between the quote from Adolph Hitler above, the links to Christian sites, and your general adherence to creationism. 

As written it looks as if you are trying to say the Hitler's theory of a master race is supported by Darwin's theory of natural selection. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it supports exactly the opposite of what Hitler was trying to accomplish.. Is that what you are suggesting?

People continually confuse natural selection with survival of the fittest - which is not a scientific notion at all. The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is also very different from natural selection. Let's get our theories straight.

The theory of natural selection depends on biodiversity for species to survive through adaptation to renewed environmental conditions. Diversity was not Hitler's favorite theme.


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 16, 2010)

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; ch{censored}t=utf-8"> 	<title></title> 	<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2  (Linux)"> 	<style type="text/css"> 	<!-- 		@page { margin: 2cm } 		P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } 		A:link { so-language: zxx } 	--> 	</style>  [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Dear Biitu Ji[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Always interesting to read your detailed posts[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I have copied and pasted some bits and added my comments in green[/FONT]
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]If you want to say Evolution and Big Bang theories have all been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church that’s why it must be true and I/we must accept it, then why don’t you accept other Roman Catholic Doctrines & beliefs?

 
Okay 2 things here:
1) I was highlighting the fact that one of the main Christian Churches has accepted these scientific theories. As that Church also reveres and follows the same Bible that you do, it emphasises my recurring point that your entire position in this debate is built upon a different interpretation of these scriptures. Because the words are the same, but your explanations of what they mean are different

 
2) Clearly I'm not Christian so why on Earth would you ask me why I don't follow other Catholic Doctrines & beliefs. No offence intended my friend but I will have to say that was a silly argument!

 
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]I also gave value of Pi and e from the two verses of Creation. First verse of Genesis and first verse of John. Please check it.  

 
I did – I do not accept counting letters and numbers as a valid scientific method. That is just my personal view on it.  

 
Of course I too believe Egyptians were great engineers, but I was talking about Pi. The value of which we still use as 22/7 (approximate) in which great Egyptians were Wrong! As the whole world was! But the Bible gave it right as it gave of e. Here is proven mathematical precision. 

 
No you had to make some assumptions about what measurements were being referred to
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]I would like to know which proofs I have illustrated using a numerological approach which are far from scientific?

 
Okay let's look at what numerology means. Wiki is as good a place to start as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

 
I quote: “The term can also be used for those who place excess faith in numerical patterns”

 
Then let's look at this extract from your website:

 
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If you 				examine the numerical values of each of the Hebrew letters, and 				the numerical value of the words (*see 				chart at end), and apply them to this formula:  [/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The 				number of letters x the product of the [/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]letters[/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
The 				number of words x the product of the [/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]words[/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] 				[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You get 				3.1416 x 10<sup>17</sup>.  The value of p to four decimal 				places!  Hmm.[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]John 				1:1[/FONT]
_“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 				the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 				Word was God.[/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In Greek:[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]*Ἐν 				ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς 				τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Transliteration:[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]En 				arche en o Logos kai o Logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o 				Logos.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This time 				if you take the numerical value of each of the Greek letters 				(*see 				chart at end), and the numerical value of the words, and 				apply them to the same formula:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The 				number of letters x the product of the letters
The number 				of words x the product of the words[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You now 				get 2.7183 x 10[/FONT]<sup>[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]65[/FONT]</sup>[FONT=Arial, sans-serif], 				the value of [/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]e[/FONT]_[FONT=Arial, sans-serif].  				Curious![/FONT]

 

You have divined meaning from numbers and letters and you have used different languages as well. Would Pi work in Greek. Would e work in Hebrew? It's all completely irrelevant because there are countless other languages where neither would work.
This is not science and please do not insult  our intelligence by trying to pass it of as science

 
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]I have Given proofs that *Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed*. Dinosaurs did not die long before humans came into existence. I think you have not taken my previous posts seriously.

 
I could say the exact same about you not accepting the counter proofs that have been posted on this thread including videos of scientists who are known and respected throughout the world.

 
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]But still for arguments sake if we consider Dinosaurs died long before Human came into existence, that doesn’t give humans safety! For there were many other Giant and average size *carnivorous animals who would have finished Humans! * 

 
Really? Where you there?

 

 
*Also I want to point out here that the population of Humans of that time was very rare on the other hand these carnivorous animals weretoo many in number and of many different species they could do their job very easily as I said **according to evolution** theory humans did not have sophisticated brain, or any protective thing, they did not have horns, sharp teeth, pointed nails, running speed, nothing!! And also all other animal babies, they grow very fast, but human baby take at least one and half year just to stand on its feet, it is the most helpless baby in the world! It couldn’t protect itself neither human could protect their baby in the ancient wilderness.*

 
You must have been there to know all this in so much detail.......

 
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]*Human & Ape DNA:-*[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]*You are not a serious seeker**; * 

 
My friend, I would note that I am almost twice your age and have more life experience and have been reading up on this sort of stuff almost as long as you have lived. You will afford me more courtesy if you want me to continue in this debate. I note I already commended you on the scale of your work on your website.

 

 
*if you were you would have read carefully what I wrote and checked links I posted. I don’t think I need to explain it here. I would just say, read my previous posts carefully with the articles I referred to (see links).*[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] 
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]A[/FONT]nd you didn't answer my question. I asked what the percentage was.

 

 
*I want to ask you, “Why are you sticking to Apes?” Apes are not only living things whose DNA matches with us. I’m quoting from my previous post ,”*We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly (*Drosophila species*), 50% of our DNA with Mice, *75 %*of our DNA with*nematode worms, *33% of our DNA with Daffodil (flower plant) etc. Why don’t these evolutionists (& you) say, cabbage, fruit fly, worm, potato, flower, mice, horse etc are our ancestors?”

 
Our bodies contain a lot of water but we wouldn't compare ourselves to the ocean would we. Sorry I don't mean to be rude but I would have to say this is a silly argument. Does a cabbage have a head, arms and legs? Do mice have hands? Do humans or apes have wings? Or petals? Evolution looks for patterns and similarities. Do humans and apes have heads, arms, legs, fingers and toes? Yes they most certainly do!

 

 
*Evolution promotes Racism. * 

 
*NO Humans promote racism*

 
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]You interpreted the Bible your way but that’s clearly misinterpretation because Bible itself does not support your interpretation.

 
And has God told you that the Bible supports your interpretation? I have already mentioned that one of the largest and longest established branches of your religion takes an alternative view. I have no objection to freedom of speech but would ask you to recognise where you are in the grand scheme of things and don't be too quick to judge others.

 

 
 I doubt you ever read Bible because if you had read it you won’t say such thing.

 
Yes I have and would and I daresay there are millions of Roman Catholics who would as well[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]


[/FONT]I think this debate will never end, so I think you should study Creationism and Bible.

 
Actually I am content with what I have already studied to date thank you
[FONT=tohama, verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Still I will look 4 your responce. Thanks for all your responces.

 
And you Bittu Ji
Take care!


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jul 16, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Dear <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->*Mai Harinder Kaur*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->,
> You said you have read whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, did you find anywhere that girls will burn if they ask question? from your writing I think that priest was joking, and if not you had to ask him Biblical reference!! Dont say anything just because somebody said that, you must have proof!!
> Yes you are free to believe what you want, I am not forcing you to believe what I believe!!
> By the way thans for your opinion.




Bittu ji,

I admit that there is quite a lot more than my brief statement in the previous post.  I was trying to get the priest to throw me out because I was getting pretty desperate to get out of the Church and...I have written the whole story (which will probably infuriate you) at   The Day I Became A Sikh.  Please go read.

I must have proof?  Like the proof that you offer in your links, where you use Christian belief to prove Christian belief?  This is like my caregiver who keeps trying to convince me of the truth of the Bible using the Bible.  In mathematics this is called assuming the conclusion, what is to be proven.  Anything can be "proven" using this method.

I am so very happy to have your permission to believe what I believe.  In any case, there is no way you can force me - or anyone else - to believe what you believe.

I find this whole subject distasteful in the extreme.  Sikhi teaches that whatever religion you belong to, be a good member of that religion.  "If you are a Muslim, be a good Muslim.  If you are a Hindu, be a good Hindu."  By extension, if you are a Christian, be a good Christian.  I realise that being a good Christian involves evangelising and attempting to convert the world.  OK, you have given it a running try here at SPN.  You have "fought the good fight."  I am sure that Christ is very pleased with you.  Now please knock it off.  I come here to be a Sikh.  If I want to be proselytised to I'll answer the door the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking.  Or I'll start listening to my caregiver's incessant prattling.    Please forgive my rudeness.  It seems that courtesy simply doesn't work here.


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 16, 2010)

Dear Bittu Ji

Here is an interesting article on the composition of Genesis:

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/genesis_texts.html


----------



## Bittu (Jul 17, 2010)

Dear *Seeker9*,
Your comments in Green and my in Red. <?"urn:fficeffice" />
<o> </o>
No you had to make some assumptions about what measurements were being referred to
<o> </o>
No, I didn’t make any assumption, it is logical that those who build the Temple and wrote Bible were Hebrew (Israelite) and they used their (Hebrew) measurement and not British or Indian measurement. So, it is not assumption but a simple *Logic* that we too would have to use their measurement to get the values from their material.
You have divined meaning from numbers and letters and you have used different languages as well. Would Pi work in Greek. Would e work in Hebrew? It's all completely irrelevant because there are countless other languages where neither would work.
This is not science and please do not insult our intelligence by trying to pass it of as science.

What you wrote here, simply shows you know nothing about Bible. If you knew you would know why I used different languages.  Well, let me tell you, Bible has 2 parts, 1-Old Testament and 2-New testament. Old Testament was written in *Hebrew *and New Testament was written in* Greek. *Why would I use other languages other than those in which Bible was revealed? Why would it work in other languages, when Bible is in Greek & Hebrew? These are the languages in which Bible was/is written. As Adi Granth is written in *Gurumukhi*.That’s why I used Hebrew for Genesis 1:1 (Old Testament) and Greek for John 1:1(New Testament). Please take a look, 2+2=4 and 5+5=10, now tell me why not 2+2=10, and 5+5=4? How did you think numbers which gives value of Pi will give value of e and which gives value of e will give of value of Pi? It’s illogical!!! If it is not Science then what is? Sorry to say, but please tell me where is intelligence, if these simple things we don’t understand? 
I could say the exact same about you not accepting the counter proofs that have been posted on this thread including videos of scientists who are known and respected throughout the world.

Excuse me? The proofs I presented leaves no room for doubt!! They are irrefutable.  And I’m sure you have not checked them. I too posted links where well known and respected scientists are talking. As I said, before, Creationists are not K.G. students; they too are PhD holders and Scientists. Evolution promoters just listen to Evolutionists, and this is unfair, to be fair you must listen to both of them!!
Really? Where you there?
How could you say that? Being an evolutionist you must know that, because your own evolutionist scientists are saying that!! This is not my invention!!
By the way, were you or Evolutionist there to see Evolution and Apes becoming Humans?


You must have been there to know all this in so much detail.......
Again, this is not me but your own evolutionists, I don’t believe Human was idiot/witless, it’s your Evolution science!! You must ask these questions to yourself and other evolutionists!!!!!


My friend, I would note that I am almost twice your age and have more life experience and have been reading up on this sort of stuff almost as long as you have lived. You will afford me more courtesy if you want me to continue in this debate. I note I already commended you on the scale of your work on your website.
I really, thank for what you did; and please forgive me if I offended you. I never intended that.


And you didn't answer my question. I asked what the percentage was.
I did not write because I gave you links where many things along with % are mentioned. It proves you have not taken my posts seriously. 
Our bodies contain a lot of water but we wouldn't compare ourselves to the ocean would we. Sorry I don't mean to be rude but I would have to say this is a silly argument. Does a cabbage have a head, arms and legs? Do mice have hands? Do humans or apes have wings? Or petals? Evolution looks for patterns and similarities. Do humans and apes have heads, arms, legs, fingers and toes? Yes they most certainly do!
Look just anatomical or genetic similarities don’t prove evolution.  And what I wrote nothing is silly there because evolutionists consider genetics greater than anatomy, and all their main arguments for evolution are from Genetics not Anatomy. Why Just consider Human and chimpanzee, why not Gibbon, Lar Gibbon, Barbary, Siamang, Langur, Drill, Babun, Sloth, Lemurs, they all have heads, arms, legs, fingers and toes. By the way mice resembles us much, that’s why scientist experiment on them first and then on humans.
Why don’t you and evolutionists see patterns and similarities in Dog & Bear and other animals like them? Are they ancestors of each other?
Why are human not turning into something else? Why Apes are not becoming Humans?
If Evolution is true then there is no need of God as Evolutionists say. The whole universe can go on without God, if evolution is true. At least I am not descended from Apes, but Evolutionists might be!!
*NO Humans promote racism*

NO Humans who believe in Evolution promote Racism. Please study the history of Nazism and Communism, both groups believed in Darwin’s Evolution, and on its basis they justified their deeds.     
And has God told you that the Bible supports your interpretation? I have already mentioned that one of the largest and longest established branches of your religion takes an alternative view. I have no objection to freedom of speech but would ask you to recognize where you are in the grand scheme of things and don't be too quick to judge others.

Roman Catholic Church has not officially defined her position on issues of Evolution like Cosmological, Biological. Roman Catholic Church does not believe that humans existed before or beside Adam & Eve (at their time). She believes that First humans Adam and Eve existed in 4000 B.C. She does not believe that God made an Ape which billions of years later became Human. All these things contradict Evolution Theory though RCC confess to believe in _theistic evolution_.  As I mentioned some things here, according to Bible God Created Man not an Ape which became man His created all things instantly, He commanded and it came into existence. That’s why my interpretation is right!!
Here is an interesting article on the composition of Genesis.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/genesis_texts.html 
I read that article, and I want to tell you whatever that man wrote is already been refuted. Even I can refute his silly, scholarly misinterpretation. 
Actually I am content with what I have already studied to date thank you.
We should keep learning, we should update our knowledge. Take my posts seriously and read those sites, don’t just deny Creationism just because you think evolution is true/ or it is popular. I am half of your age it doesn’t mean I am wrong. But its ok you think you are satisfied with what you have already studied.
Thanks 
May God bless you.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>


----------



## Bittu (Jul 17, 2010)

Dear *Mai Harinder Kaur*,
Your comments in black mine in red.<?"urn:fficeffice" />
I must have proof? Like the proof that you offer in your links, where you use Christian belief to prove Christian belief? This is like my caregiver who keeps trying to convince me of the truth of the Bible using the Bible. In mathematics this is called assuming the conclusion, what is to be proven. Anything can be "proven" using this method.
I wonder you are of my mother’s age, and still you are writing such ridicules things. If I want to prove my Christian beliefs, *then it is necessary* to give both internal and external proofs. By the way Creationism is science and I am using science to prove my point. You blame me for using Christian belief to prove Christian belief, then you must also blame EVOLUTIONISTS because they are doing the same! They are using science to prove their science!! It simple means many people here are ignorant because they are judging without seeing other side! Don’t call it assumption because they are proven but evolution and your claims can be mathematically called assuming the conclusion, what is to be proven. Yes, anything including your claims and Evolution can be "proven" using this method.
I must have proof?
I meant by that you must have Biblical reference for such teaching.
I am so very happy to have your permission to believe what I believe. In any case, there is no way you can force me - or anyone else - to believe what you believe.
I was quite clear, neither have you asked me permission nor I gave it to you. It’s your right.  And didn’t even intend to force you to believe what I believe.
By extension, if you are a Christian, be a good Christian. I realise that being a good Christian involves evangelising and attempting to convert the world. 
This clearly shows your understanding of Christian faith. Now I am sure you know nothing of Christian faith. Thanks for confirming it.
If I want to be proselytised to I'll answer the door the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking. 
It’s entirely your decision for whom you open doors and you alone will be accountable for that. Enjoy your free will.
   Please forgive my rudeness. 
You don’t need to be sorry, you didn’t hurt me anyway! Rather you forgive me if I offended you.
Thank You,
God Bless You.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 17, 2010)

Dear *BhagatSingh*,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
I am always ready to accept *reality* not mere theories which are promoted by false proofs (half truth). Let me tell I am not a Creationist from Birth, I too followed evolution many years but when I found truth in Creationism, since then I am no longer Evolutionist. I have seen many videos (including yours) and read articles from Evolutionists but *I also* have seen and read Creationists, and I am fully convinced by Creationism. And I surely know those who are advocating evolution here have not seen/ read proof /rebuttals from Creationists. You have Blind faith in Evolution. I urge you to study BOTH sides, and not just one that would be unfair. I also believe in the Noah’s Ark and this too is proven by Creationists you just need to look it.  
Thanks for videos; they are really wonderful but not entirely true.  
God Bless You.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 17, 2010)

Dear *Narayanjot Kaur*,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
Hitler is not talking something else; he is saying what Darwin’s Natural Selection says. Please read that quote again and study some history of Nazism and Communism. History will clear your doubts. 
Thank You.
God Bless You.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 18, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Dear *Narayanjot Kaur*,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
> Hitler is not talking something else; he is saying what Darwin’s Natural Selection says. Please read that quote again and study some history of Nazism and Communism. History will clear your doubts.
> Thank You.
> God Bless You.



Bittu ji

I read he quote several times. And it does not make any sense. Please read some sources other than Christian sources or creationist treatises regarding competing theories of evolution and perhaps you will understand my point.

*You are now also officially warned not to proselytize as you did in the above post which has been deleted. *


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 18, 2010)

Bittu JI,
Glad you are ready to accept reality.

Creationism (Genesis) argues that have been designed by God.
But there are several problems in the "design" of life that only make sense under the light of evolution and these problems undercut the Creation theory.

The video contains blood as a Giraffe is dissected on the spot. The laryngeal nerve takes a ridiculous detour from the voice box down and around the heart and back up to the brain, when it could simply be wired to go straight from the voice box to the brain...
YouTube- Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe Proves Evolution [Transcript]

and a video of amusing yet quite stupid design... 
YouTube- Stupid Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPYsVHq2YvU&feature=player_embedded#!

icecreammunda I think I have posted enough material from Jerry Coyne's "*Why Evolution is True*" to ThunderF00t's "*Why do People laugh at Creationists?*" series to *Evidence from Ape to Human Evolution* to *Unintelligent Design* in support of Evolution. If that doesn't help you break out of your mindset then I am sorry, I can't do anything further.

Bittu ji
There is nothing for Creationism in the peer reviewed journals... As expected since there the evidence points to something different.

EDIT:
About Hitler, he is not an authority on the fact of Evolution or the theory of Natural Selection. Using him to prove your point just shows your lack of understanding.
He completely misunderstood "survival of the fittest". Fitness in the Theory of Natural Selection, is the ability of the organism to pass on its genes. Fitness is calculated for an individual based on the average of an entire population. Its not strength, speed, brains or racial superiority but reproductive potential and output!


----------



## Bittu (Jul 18, 2010)

Dear *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Narayanjot Kaur*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
      I told you to Study History, i didnt tell to read christian sources. Read it from Secular History. I have said it before, I am not creationist from birth, I folowed evolution many years, but I am fullly convinced by creationism now. I have studied and still study both sides thats why I am confirm in what i am saying, unlike you who have blind faith in evolution, without knowing othet side you have declaired evolution to be true, this is unfair/unjust. You are following evolution just because it is most poppular theory and many follow it. And if you believe in God then you are contradicting yourself by beliveing in evolution, because it clearly denies God. either you believe in God or in Evolution you can not believe both. 

Sombody told a story:-
There was a man who said that he was dead. Every day he was saying to himself, to all his friends and to all the people: "I'm dead. I know I am dead." 

Finally, his closest friend said to him, "You're not dead. I know you're not. Will you agree to go to the psychiatrist? Perhaps he can prove to you that you are not dead." 

The so-called dead man agreed. They went to the psychiatrist together. The psychiatrist asked the "dead man" --- `what's the problem?" He replied: "I am dead. I know I am." 

The psychiatrist asked him, "Do dead men bleed? The dead man replied, "No!" The psychiatrist then said, "Okay, I will do a very simple test on you. I will ***** the end of your finger with a pin. If your finger bleeds, then you know that you are alive. If not, then you know that you are dead." 

The psychiatrist then pricked his finger with a pin, and alas, it began to bleed! 

What did the "dead man" say? "I guess dead men do bleed!!" 

Same is with those who are blindly following evolution like you.

What you did with my previous post is called narrow mindedness. You forbid freedom of speech. I did not seek to *proselytize* anybody, I have no power over anyones mind, let others descide what they want to do, if they want to accept it let them. If they want to reject thet them. You are living in christian majority country, should they ban your website, or your work? whereever you go, you ask for freedom of everything but when others need it you forbid them. Nice job..... I doubt you will delete it also. Sorry 4 straight talk.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).


----------



## Bittu (Jul 18, 2010)

Dear *BhagatSingh*,<?"urn:fficeffice" />

I think you don’t understand what I said, study both sides, I did and still do. You are just looking answers from Evolutionists, you never studied Creationists. This is called blind faith. Have you ever searched answers from Creationists, what are their responses on the so-called proofs for evolution? I said it many times; it is not fair, not just. You cannot pass sentence without listening other. That’s not right method of study/judgment. You think these evolutionist arguments disprove Creation, that’s a big mistake, you just not have seen rebuttals from Creationists, that’s ignorance. 

Even Guru Granth Sahib teaches Creation!

*By His Command, the world was formed.*
*hukmay deesai jagat upaa-i-aa.*
*By His Command, the heavens, this world and the nether regions were created; by His Command, His Power supports them. ||10||*
*hukmay surag machh pa-i-aalaa hukmay kalaa rahaa-idaa. ||10||*
*By His Hukam, air, water and fire came into being.*
*hukmay pa-un paanee gainaaraN.*
*(SGGS 1037)*

Would you say Heavens, Earth, Air, Water and Fire came into being by evolution? Is God incapable of bringing them into existence instantly? To believe in Evolution means to believe that God’s command was too weak that it took billions of years to create whatever exists!! Further SGGS says,
*Without any supporting power, He sustained the universe.*
*baajh kalaa aadaan rahaa-i-aa.*
*1036*
*He didn’t need anything to create and sustain universe not even Evolution! *
*He created Himself, and rejoiced; He evaluates Himself. ||6||*
*aapay aap upaa-ay vigsai aapay keemat paa-idaa. ||6||*
*1935*
*SGGS says God created Himself (I don’t know how?)???? Please tell me how much time God took to evolve? And from who is He evolved? From Ape or Devine Ape?*
*Even SGGS do not support Evolution!! *
God did not make stupid Design, nor does He make today. God has finished Creation. When God created universe everything was GOOD.  “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, _it was_ very good.” (Gen 1:31)
You posted me video about stupid Design but you forgot one thing, according Sikh belief Waheguru is the Creator, that why ultimately He is responsible for these stupid-designs. That means you are blaming your own Creator God.  
About Hitler, Sorry to say I have no lack of understanding. You just study History Nazis and Natural Selection you will come to know that, Hitler was an evolutionist racist. He did not misunderstand Natural Selection!! 
I too have nothing more to say! 
May God Bless you.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 18, 2010)

*He created Himself, and rejoiced; He evaluates Himself. ||6||<?"urn:<img width=" />
aapay aap upaa-ay vigsai aapay keemat paa-idaa. ||6||*
*(SGGS 1035) *
*(Sorry reference was mistakenly written as 1935)*


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 18, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Dear *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Narayanjot Kaur*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
> I told you to Study History, i didnt tell to read christian sources. Read it from Secular History. I have said it before, I am not creationist from birth, I folowed evolution many years, but I am fullly convinced by creationism now. I have studied and still study both sides thats why I am confirm in what i am saying, unlike you who have blind faith in evolution, without knowing othet side you have declaired evolution to be true, this is unfair/unjust. You are following evolution just because it is most poppular theory and many follow it. And if you believe in God then you are contradicting yourself by beliveing in evolution, because it clearly denies God. either you believe in God or in Evolution you can not believe both.
> 
> Sombody told a story:-
> ...




Bittu ji

Kindly remember that in this thread I make decisions regarding what is proselytizing and what is not.

Also ask yourself why you think that I have not read "history."


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 18, 2010)

BIttu Ji,
In Sikhism, God creates the cosmos by his Word. He sets them in motion then watches over them. Sikhs might run into some problems with things like vestigial traits and laryngeal detours, etc but the creation story of Sikhs leaves enough room for Evolution. In fact, some verses can be interpreted to resemble Evolution e.g.


> ਸਾਚੇ  ਤੇ  ਪਵਨਾ  ਭਇਆ  ਪਵਨੈ  ਤੇ  ਜਲੁ  ਹੋਇ  ॥
> साचे ते पवना भइआ पवनै ते जलु होइ  ॥
> Sācẖe ṯe pavnā bẖa▫i▫ā pavnai ṯe jal ho▫e.
> From the True Lord came  the air, and from the air came water.
> ...


The three worlds could mean life on land, water and air. So based on this interpretation, some might argue that Sikhism supports Evolution.

Actually, to be honest, even the Bible creation story is often interpreted symbolically. When that is done, evolution fits in. If you choose to tale it literally in the face of all the evidence against it then you are just rejecting reality, IMO.

I think there is one  last thing I can do for you. I can show you how you are making logical fallacies with your "Evolution is false so creationism must be true" argument.
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Its not evolution vs Creationism  but Evolution vs No Evolution. Evolution vs (Biblical) Creationism is a  false dichotomy because there are an infinite number of other  possibilities. If its not the Biblical creationism then some Hindu  creation myth or Pagan myth or whatever else our minds can conjure up. 
If evolution is shown to be false then that's that, its false. You cannot say Creationism is true because Evolution is false. You still have all your work laid  out ahead of you to show that Biblical Creationism is be true, as Bib.  Creationism vs No Bib. Creationism is the correct dichotomy. 
If Biblical Creationism turns out to be false that doesn't automatically  make the Hindu Creation stories true. Again that would be setting up a  false dichotomy of Bib. Creation vs Hindu Creation. etc

The following video shows the fallacies in the most prominent creationists' arguments, and of course, some of the things you have said fit right in. 
YouTube- Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

BTW I was a creationist before I studied science. 
Enjoy the videos, Goodbye!


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dear Biitu Ji

This will be my last reply to you as I fear we are going in circles and not progressing anything

This is because you have consistently refused to acknowledge the counter-proofs we have presented to you, which is fair enough, 
as they challenge what you believe in

But clearly, what you believe in is not the same as what myself and others on this thread believe in so we are all wasting our time here

I could continue to argue the points you have presented in red for example your comments around Pi...you call it logic, I call it a 
subjective judgement and interpretation that suited your subsequent calculations. As for numerology, I have more than proven the point
and you really don't have a leg to stand on in terms of a counter-argument.

But ultimately this going back and forth will not get us anywhere as you have demonstrated a way of justifying and interpreting things
to suit your beliefs and you then refer to them as scientific proofs!

Mai Harinder Kaur Ji made an excellent observation in an earlier post about your approach in that you are using the thing to be proven as 
it's own proof, i.e the Bible. Naturally, you know exactly where you are going to end up when you apply this circular self-fulfilling logic

It is my humble opinion that what you keep on referring to as your proofs are thus no more than hypotheses, which wikipedia 
defines as “a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon”

But there is no credible empirical evidence to support your assertions. Here's what wiki has to say in this area: 

“A central concept in*science*and the*scientific method*is that all*evidence*must be*empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent 
on evidence or*consequences*that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of*empiricism*by 
the use of the adjective*empirical*or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working*hypotheses*that are*testable*using*
observation*or*experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.*
Empirical data*is*data*that is produced by*experiment*or*observation.”

You keen on going on about the Bible and Science but I see nothing at all in your approach that complies with the above definitions

Now you could say wikipedia has a grand anti-christian agenda or you could accept it as a neutral third party contributor in this debate.

As I noted earlier, there are other faiths with their own view of the Creation. There are mathematical and scientific references in other scriptures 
including the Vedas and the Koran. Looking at Islam, they also revere Jesus but in a completely different way. Different religions with different 
views and you are posting on a forum that is focussed on Sikh scriptures. 

Whilst it has been a stimulating debate, I'm sorry to say it's just getting a bit boring for me now

I daresay you will have a response to this..I would expect no less going by past expeience!

But I have said my piece and won't be responding to you any further and wish you well in your quest for enlightenment

All the best Bittu Ji!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 18, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Hi *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Tejwant Singh*<!-- google_ad_section_end --> and all commenters.fficeffice" />
> I read this article & the comments and I found them anti-Christian. That’s nothing new! First of all I want to say that many commenters and writer/poster are ignorant of many things, like Creation Science, Holy Bible and Christianity.
> 
> Let me write about the article. As a Bible believing Christian I believe Christianity and True- Science can co-exist. As I said the writer and many commenters are ignorant of Creationism. When Creationists say Earth is Young, it is not billions of yrs old, but just thousands they are not wrong in their argument. You cannot prove Universe & Earth is billions of yrs old, just from carbon dating (C14) of fossils. Carbon dating is neither 100% right nor it is fully reliable, if you doubt my argument you may search it. Just because something seems to be billions of yrs old it doesn’t mean it is! Creationists have proofs for their arguments and you must check them. Creationists are not garden school kids they are also PhD holders and Scientists from all fields of science. Many creationists are well known for their work, and their position in the community of scientists. The matter is that only you guys don’t know who they are because of your ignorance. Evolutionist cannot prove Big-bang neither Darwin’s useless theories and about their arguments, Creationists can refute them all.
> ...



Bittu ji and Aulakh ji,

Guru Fateh.

First and foremost, this article is not written by my but shared, thanks to Narayanjot Kaur ji for this excellent seva. The original authour is:Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Are Science and Religion  Compatible?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->   

As a Sikh, a learner, a seeker,it is our duty to expand our  horizons by making knowledge our best friend, hence the name Sikh, so  that we can get rid of man made cobwebs of dogmas which are based on subjective truths like Hell and Heaven rather than objective reality on which Sikhi is based, which helps us become pragmatists.

Bittu ji,

I have a few questions for you regarding your faith.

1. Were you born a Christian or a convert?
2. Which denomination of Christianity do you belong to and why did you choose this denomination in particular?
3. If you are a convert, what made you  choose Christianity and what was your faith before that?
4. If you were born a Christian, then who was the first to convert to Christianity in your family/ancestors and what was the reason of the conversion?

After you have responded to the above, then we shall continue on our interfaith interaction and hopefully learn from each other. I am ready to learn as a Sikh and I hope you are too.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jul 18, 2010)

Seeker9 said:


> Dear Biitu Ji
> 
> This will be my last reply to you as I fear we are going in circles and not progressing anything
> 
> ...



I have also said all I have to say;  I have other things to do.  I have one suggestion for you:



> *The Great Commission *
> 
> <sup id="en-NIV-24209" class="versenum">16</sup>Then  the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had  told them to go. <sup id="en-NIV-24210" class="versenum">17</sup>When  they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. <sup id="en-NIV-24211" class="versenum">18</sup>Then Jesus came to them and  said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. <sup id="en-NIV-24212" class="versenum">19</sup>Therefore go and make  disciples of all nations, baptizing them in<sup value="[<a href=" #fen-niv-24212a="" title="See footnote  a">a]" class="footnote">[a]</sup> the name of the Father and of the  Son and of the Holy Spirit, <sup id="en-NIV-24213" class="versenum">20</sup>and  teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am  with you always, to the very end of the age."



Please go do what your religion requires of you.  Be a good Christian.  But please do it somewhere else.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 18, 2010)

Bittu ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:


> *I believe in the  Bible. You are free to choose, that’s how God made us with free will. *


By the above you have proven that the God you believe in is not omnipotent. If he were omnipotent, meaning ALL POWERFUL, then you as POWERLESS can not have  the power to have freewill. If God gave you freewill then the God you serve is not omnipotent.

So, with you claim above, what you have done is that not only you have contradicted the God you serve but also contradicted yourself, which is a self defeating prophecy.

Regarding Adolf Hitler, He was a Christian like you are, hence he had the same faith/religion as you do. I hope you do not deny that fact.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dear Tejwant Singh Ji

A very good point I failed to pick up on earlier

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

This site contains some quotes from Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches which confirm Hitler's belief in The Bible and Christian roots

http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2006/08/hitler-creationist.html

And this one has a German and English translation of an excerpt from a speech where Hitler specifically speaks out against evolution

I hope this is helpful


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 18, 2010)

Seeker9 said:


> Dear Tejwant Singh Ji
> 
> A very good point I failed to pick up on earlier
> 
> ...



Seeker9 ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the above info. I have studied Mein Kempf and most of his speeches quite intensely just to learn what had turned him the way he had become. It was an eye opening experience.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 20, 2010)

Bittu ji

Debate issues. If Sikhs visit forums of other religions they are expected to be respectful of the religious sentiments of their Hindu or Muslim or Christian hosts. If they are not, then they are banned or their comments are deleted. Most forums segregate the commentary of members of other faiths into sections where they may speak. We have not done that. You are welcome to discuss any subject as a Christian but you must respect that this is a Sikh forum and certain types of remarks are not acceptable. Now please continue without resorting to name-calling. Thanks


----------



## Bittu (Jul 20, 2010)

Please dont post threads on interreligious dialogues, so noone will defend his beliefs and noone will be hurt. By the I didnt start anything.

But still sorry for hurting you.

*You have received a 10 month infraction. Proselytizing and hateful language are not tolerated. You did start something as this thread was in play and doing just fine until you entered the discussion. We have had this conversation before.  What you are doing would not be tolerated on a Muslim forum or a Buddhist forum. Now please cool down. Narayanjot Kaur
*


----------



## Bittu (Jul 20, 2010)

Dont delete my reply. Let the world know truth.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 20, 2010)

Sorry to say but you are hiding truth to save your position.


----------



## Bmandur (Jul 20, 2010)

I know one thing what My Guru Nanak Dev ji said.
 Lakh agaasa agaas, lakh ptaala ptaal,
But the Science is telling us NOW
So explain me how Science & Religion are Compatible

Thanks..

Tejwant singh ji it was very nice & Clear Artical you have put it together however, this is what I want an explanation for my understanding.
Bhul Chuk Maaf


----------



## Bmandur (Jul 20, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Sorry to say but you are hiding truth to save your position.


 

BITTU JI,

No one is hiding the truth from any one to save their Position. The fact is
we al have to give an opninion to understand qith your question
so you tell us what you think ( Are Science & Religion Compatible?

Bhul chuk Maaf


----------



## Bittu (Jul 21, 2010)

Dear Bmandur,

I posted reply but administrator deleted my post. Ask her to show that messege. And trully she is hiding truth, I presented.

Bittu.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 21, 2010)

Bittu ji

What position am I trying to preserve? It is time to return to the discussion and stop this.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 21, 2010)

Bittu, ji,

Guru Fateh.

Still waiting for the response about your start in Christianity as I asked you. Please do not feel hesitant to share and were you able to know what omnipotence really means or not? I am sure you are aware that you  can use the help of internet dictionaries.

And, please act like Jesus and be polite and respectful. Your recent posts have shown the contrary.

I would like to share one thing though that you may not be aware of, that I am well versed in OT, NT and the scriptures from other main religions. We can learn a lot from each other provided we have no other agenda which makes us rude, full of hatred and disdain that I am sure a Christian or a Sikh or a person who breeds goodness within is not like.

So, stick to the questions asked rather than prejudging others and playing God which you have done often in your posts, which is a shame because it is so UNJESUS like.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 21, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Dear Bmandur,
> 
> I posted reply but administrator deleted my post. Ask her to show that messege. And trully she is hiding truth, I presented.
> 
> Bittu.



Bittu ji,

Guru Fateh.

You are being unfair to Narayanjot Kaur ji and to this forum where you have the liberty to say what you have said in many of your posts. Once again you are acting very UNJESUS like when you claim that she is hiding the truth. 

This would be the most open forum you would find on the internet because we as Sikhs- students, learners- love to learn from others and share ideas how we can become better within. Many forums would not have given you a chance to continue when you started with your UNJESUS like behaviour in your posts.

Truth needs no belief, no faith because it stands on its own, that is why Guru Nanak wrote *IK ONG KAAR SATNAAM,* the first two words in the SGGS, our only Guru and you know what the second word means.


In case you did not know, I do not consider Sikhi as a religion, faith or a belief but a way of life to seek *SAT* which needs none of these things I mentioned.

No one can hide the *SAT*  no matter how much one tries. Blind faith and belief make people blind because TRUTH does not need either.

Lastly, I will urge you NOT to post any URLs here but share your own views. One can be very good at copying and pasting URLS but they are of no use when one can share things directly.

I would urge the Moderators to delete any URLs posted here because this forum is an open discussion forum where one can post one's thoughts instantly unlike other forums.

Regards 

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 21, 2010)

Tejwant ji

You as usual give some good advice and food for thought. Beyond that your perspective is one that keeps discussions free from sectarianism in places where it has no logical role to play.

Whatever position I am trying to preserve is a mystery but Bittu can explain his thoughts if he wants to do so. I was not offended and understand his frustrations even when I do not agree. Thank you.


----------



## polpol (Jul 21, 2010)

I found the following article and would like to share it here as I found it most amusing. The legend says the second student was Einstein but this is false. Enjoy!

God vs. Science

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'  The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one  of his
new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you,  son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in  God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's  good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do  anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says  I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers  for a
moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over  here
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you  try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't  say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if  you
could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student  does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,
does he? My brother  was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal  him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer
that one?'

The student  remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor
says. He takes a sip  of water from a glass on his desk to give the
student time to relax. 'Let's  start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er.yes,' the student  says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.  'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters.  'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is  there evil
in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere,  isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who  created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God  created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our  works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no  answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality?
Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible  things, do they exist in this
world?'

The student squirms on his feet.  'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again,  so the professor repeats his
question. 'Who created them?' There is still no  answer. Suddenly the
lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom.  The class is
mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues on to another student. 'Do  you
believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and  cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says  you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around  you.

Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen  Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I  have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt  your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God  for
that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you  still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical,  testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do  you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my  faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem  science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student  stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his
own. 'Professor,  is there such thing as heat? '

'Yes.'

'And is there such a thing  as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there  isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously  interested.

The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to  explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat,  mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but  we
don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees  below
zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.  There
is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder  than
the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to  study
when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or  matter
have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence  of
heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the  absence
of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal  units
because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just  the
absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in  the classroom,
sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness,  professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor  replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it
isn't  darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir.

Darkness is not something; it  is the absence of something. You can have
low light, normal light, bright  light, flashing light, but if you have
no light constantly you have nothing  and it's called darkness, isn't
it? That's the meaning we use to define the  word. In reality, darkness
isn't. If it were, you would be able to make  darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the  student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. 'So what point are you  making, young man?'

'Yes, professor, my point is, your philosophical  premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be  flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.  'Flawed? Can
you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of  duality,' the student explains. 'You
argue that there is life and then  there's death; a good God and a bad God. 
You are viewing the concept of God  as something finite, something we can 
measure. Sir, science can't even  explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and 
magnetism, but has never seen,  much less fully understood either one. 
To view death as the opposite of life  is to be ignorant of the fact that death 
cannot exist as a substantive  thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the
absence of it.' 'Now tell  me, professor. Do you teach your students
that they evolved from a  monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young  man,
yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your  own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as  he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester  indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work  and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you  not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a  preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the  commotion
has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to  the
other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The  student
looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever  seen
the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is  there
anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt  the
professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No  one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules  of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have  no
brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have  no
brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is  silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.  Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man
answers. 'I guess you'll  have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and,  in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there  such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'of course,  there is. We see it
every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity  to man. It
is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the  world.
These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the  student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto  itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold,  a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God. God did not  create evil. Evil is the result of what
happens when man does not have God's  love present in his heart. It's
like the cold that comes when there is no  heat or the darkness that
comes when there is no light.'

The professor  sat down...a very interesting semester, indeed!


----------



## polpol (Jul 21, 2010)

Dear All,
           I sent the previous post without knowing about the conflict raised by our friend
bittu. I do not wish to add to the confusion and hard feelings, I really thought it is amusing and it is not to be taken sereously. So peace to all...


----------



## polpol (Jul 21, 2010)

My dear Bittu, I want to thank you because you have shown what a wonderful site this is, considering the respect and patience the participants have shown you. 
                   Now I am worried about you. You are slowly but surely placing yourself in
the position of a victim which is quite common among fanatics. What I don't understand is that you live in India and you have lots of religions to chose from yet you chose the most alien to the culture you live in. How can you identify with a religion that clearly uses the Bible to promote american neo-colonialism and a most perverse type of pseudo-religeous positivism (or vice-versa). Please explain how you can possibly identify with the founder whose name (a pseudonyme for sure),reminds us of a once popular american canned meat product...you make me want to be fanatic myself and advice you to take it as a sign of God that you found this site, in order to free yourself from the perverse clutches of the beleaf system you are trying to sell. Are you paid for promoting all this nonsense? Do you get some bonus? I am curious of how you got into this and as I said, I am worried about you.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 22, 2010)

*<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Tejwant Singh* Ji,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
You said, “Please do not feel hesitant to share and were you able to know what omnipotence really means or not? I am sure you are aware that you can use the help of internet dictionaries.” 
I know what Omnipotence means! I already posted reply to you, but Narayanjot Kaur ji deleted it. And I wrote it too, that she deleted my post but I think you didn’t understand that.  
Yes from first post I am polite and respectful, but you consider it is rude and disrespect because I am contradicting you! What should I call your earlier post, polite or rude? Respect or disrespect? What you all do is ok for you and Narayanjot Kaur ji, but when I do something it is offensive!!
<o> </o>
 I don’t know about other religious scriptures but I came to know how well versed you are in OT, NT.
<o> </o>
The questions you asked me have nothing to do with this discussion. And I know who is prejudging others and playing God in posts. What you are doing is UNSIKH like. No students, No learners, No seekers.
<o> </o>
I have tested liberty? this forum offered me. You are right; Truth needs no belief, no faith because it stands on its own that is why Jesus said, “*I Am* *the Way*, *the Truth* and *the Life*.” (*John 14:6*) I too believe Christianity is not a religion; it is Revelation from God and Personal Relation with God.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 22, 2010)

*<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Narayanjot Kaur* Ji,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
<o> </o>
What I meant by hiding truth and preserving position, you know it very well it’s not mystery. Just post my reply which you deleted if you think you are right. If I were frustrated I would not have post replies. It’s you who is frustrated and you proved it by deleting my post.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 22, 2010)

Dear *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->polpol*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
<o> </o>
Your own SGGS is composed of Hindu and Muslim ideas and philosophies. Why don’t you consider it alien? 
Why should I consider, Christianity Alien? It came into India long before Sikhism! You too are living in a culture where your religion and culture is alien! Why don’t you leave it and accept the majority religion and culture of Canada? By the way Christianity is not a religion; it is Revelation from God and Personal Relation with God. I don’t believe in religions! God is One, He did not create religions. He does not need permission to send His message to His own Creation, in His own created land.    
You asked me, “How can you identify with a religion that clearly uses the Bible to promote american neo-colonialism and a most perverse type of pseudo-religeous positivism (or vice-versa).”  I never heard such a thing!! Why don’t you prove me that Bible really supports the things you mentioned!
How can you identify with a religion that clearly uses the SGGS to promote terrorism in Punjab? Sikh terrorists too use SGGS to promote their terrorists activities, Should I believe that SGGS supports their Claim? 
<o> </o>
Yes you are worried because you frustrated! You said I am selling my belief system, “beleaf system you are trying to sell. Are you paid for promoting all this nonsense? Do you get some bonus? I am curious of how you got into this and as I said, I am worried about you.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->”
Neither is I selling, nor I am paid for anything, nor do I get bonus! I am just defending my Faith. I too ask you, “Why are you selling your belief system. Are you paid for promoting all this nonsense? Do you get some bonus?” Now don’t call “defending” to what you are doing, because you call it selling. By the way unlike SGGS Bible is not nonsense!! Before calling Bible nonsense first read your nonsense book SGGS carefully, it is truly nonsense.   
<o> </o>
Thanks for posting the wonderful story but it contradicts your SGGS.


----------



## Bittu (Jul 22, 2010)

To All,<?"urn:fficeffice" />
<o> </o>
I will post reply no more. Unless you become sincere student, seeker and learner you we will get no result. So, I think it is worthless to discuss here. See you. Bye-Bye. And plz *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Narayanjot Kaur* Ji post my reply which you deleted.


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 22, 2010)

Bittu said:


> To All,fficeffice" /><?"urn:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Ok...I know I said I wouldn't but I have itchy fingers and just have to reply.......

Dear Biitu Ji

Please read through all your posts on this thread and feel free to copy and paste those excerpts of what you have written that clearly, unequivocally demonstrate your intentions to "become sincere student, seeker and learner" about the Sikh faith - which you will be aware is the faith this worthy forum is all about!

Thank you


----------



## polpol (Jul 22, 2010)

Dear Bittu, I am not Sikh (yet), I am just learning and seeking. It's not the Bible the problem, it is the way you use it that sounds blasphemous. You are not wrong in everything you said but there is not much of a religeous spirit in what you say. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But there is lots of neo-colonialism that does use religion and what you follow sounds a lot like that.


----------



## polpol (Jul 22, 2010)

Bittu said:


> Dear *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->polpol*<!-- google_ad_section_end -->,fficeffice" />
> <o> </o>
> Your own Sri Guru Granth Sahib is composed of Hindu and Muslim ideas and philosophies. Why don’t you consider it alien?
> Why should I consider, Christianity Alien? It came into India long before Sikhism! You too are living in a culture where your religion and culture is alien! Why don’t you leave it and accept the majority religion and culture of Canada? By the way Christianity is not a religion; it is Revelation from God and Personal Relation with God. I don’t believe in religions! God is One, He did not create religions. He does not need permission to send His message to His own Creation, in His own created land.
> ...


Bittu, the Bible can be interpreted in different ways. You say the most important is our personal relation with God through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Why then do you need all those references that have destorted the simple spiritual meaning of Jesus' teachings. But the fact remains that Christianity is the most tragic religion ever, the sadest one. The apostles beleaved the Jesus was to come back during their lifetime. They waited and waited and prayed while they were being persecuted and the more it became clear that Jesus was not coming the more they became desperately obstinate and gradually the faith of the early Christians became perverted with all kinds of exegesis until Christianity became the religion of the opressors whereas it started as a religion of the opressed. We can see the change in the letters of the apostles where the teachings become more and more dogmatic and where monetary and hierarchic considerations become the priority. The Apocalypse is the perfect example of the early Christians' desperation. I said I am worried about you because you are young and there are bad people out there that use the Bible in a very unchristian manner for bad political reasons.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 22, 2010)

Bittu said:


> *<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->Tejwant Singh* Ji,fficeffice" />
> You said, “Please do not feel hesitant to share and were you able to know what omnipotence really means or not? I am sure you are aware that you can use the help of internet dictionaries.”
> I know what Omnipotence means! I already posted reply to you, but Narayanjot Kaur ji deleted it. And I wrote it too, that she deleted my post but I think you didn’t understand that.
> Yes from first post I am polite and respectful, but you consider it is rude and disrespect because I am contradicting you! What should I call your earlier post, polite or rude? Respect or disrespect? What you all do is ok for you and Narayanjot Kaur ji, but when I do something it is offensive!!
> ...



Bittu ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have sent me the same message via PM and now you have given me the liberty to respond to you the same way I did in the PM to you so all readers can pitch in. Following is my response to you:

Bittu ji,

Guru Fateh,

First and foremost, I never asked you to send me a private message and  please do not do it again. This is being a coward and anti Jesus like  what you have done as you were not brave enough to respond to my initial  post about your coming into Christianity.

I am not part of the moderation of this forum but I am sure she would  not have deleted your post about your sharing how you became a  Christian, in response to my first post. It makes no sense. 

I have no idea what you wrote about omnipotence that you claimed was  deleted. You must have used a rude language or something in that nature  rather than responding to my questions because omnipotence and free will  can not exist together. I asked you direct questions and if you had  responded to them accordingly, I find no reason for the moderators whom I  have known for a long time to delete any post.

So, try another time and respond in the way I asked you in my first two  posts without calling anyone ignorant as you have done earlier. 

My UNJESUS like comment to you came when you talked about Narayanjot ji  hiding the truth and I also explained you about the TRUTH in my post. I  have no idea if you have responded to me about that or not because first  thing flashed was your private message which you sent without taking my  authorization, especially when the questions were asked in the forum. 

I have no idea if you know that Portuguese is the closest language to  Latin in which The Bible was translated from Aramic and Greek and I am  fluent in Portuguese and I have The Bible in that language also.

When you have done that, then I will discuss with you John 14:6 which I  have a lot to discuss about.

So, please respond everything in the forum and I am sure if you respond  to the questions asked in the way where fruitful discussion can happen,  then  there is no reason for the moderators to delete anybody as it is  not their practice.

And, NO MORE PM's.

Hope to hear from you in the forum about my questions to you.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Bittu (Jul 22, 2010)

*Dear polpol,fficeffice" />
* 
*Yes I agree Bible can be interpreted by different people in different ways. I don’t know about which references you are talking about, may be links of creationists. But let me tell you Discussion was not on the message of the Bible, it was Creation Vs. Evolution. As I already said Biblical message is not Science its Salvation. Your claims about **The apostles believed that Jesus was to come back during their lifetime** & Christianity being most tragic and sadest religion and **the faith of the early Christians became perverted with all kinds of exegesis and the teachings become more and more dogmatic and where monetary and hierarchic considerations become the priority and The Apocalypse is the perfect example of the early Christians' desperation**are baseless**.

Note: These are not baseless claims. They are easy enough to research. Primary and secondary historical documents demonstrate that Tejwant ji is correct. Any theologian, any Christian cleric with 2 years of training in his/her religion, would agreee. Narayanjot Kaur.
*


----------



## Bittu (Jul 22, 2010)

Dont west your time to send reply and questions, I am not going to answer. Bye-Bye........no post now, I know its worthless. 

God Bless you.
[B][COLOR="Red"][B][B]http://ktzion.weebly.com/science-and-the-holy-bible.html[/B][/B][/COLOR][/B]


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 22, 2010)

Bittu ji

You reposted a comment that was deleted as a violation of forum rules. This is nothing more than rank defiance of forum guidelines. You say you are leaving SPN. Let us see what happens. You have actually acted in a way that deserves a long ban, or at least moderation of all your posts. Let us see what happens.


----------



## Seeker9 (Jul 22, 2010)

Dear Narayanjot Kaur Ji

I hope Bittu Ji appreciates the latitude you have allowed him, and others too who may have tempered their posts in light of his young age

It is very sad we have got to this stage

Personally, my vote would be for a ban for a period of time to let him cool off and allow him to reflect on his conduct and to what extent he has been an ambassador for his faith and exemplified some of its values and norms, like humility for example

I have only been here for a short while but I do feel like part of an extended family and all the time, everyone treats each other with dignity and respect

Bittu Ji's posts were inflammatory from Day 1 and he did little to moderate that throughout this thread

He and others reading this thread need to understand what the minimum standards of conduct are

I think he has been grossly unfair in the criticisms he has directed toward you and i detect this may have been a bit upsetting for you

Hope you don't mind this post. Just wanted to show my support for what you have done here


----------



## polpol (Jul 22, 2010)

Bittu, Naranyanjot, Wait, please wait...I have a question that nobody could give an answer to and I wonder if Bittu can help. It's really just a curiosity. In Mathew we read the genealogy of Jesus and then it is devided in 3, from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylon deportation and from that to Jesus Christ. It says that there are 14 generations in each part but I counted and recounted and there are only 13 generations from the Babylon to Jesus. Now the ancients knew how to count, that's for sure so why would they insist on 14 equal generations? Is it symbolic? Don't get me wrong Bittu, it's not a criticism, I just wonder, do you know. Until now the priests of different christian sects just replied that the Bible must not be taken litereally and I know that but still this seems like a simple error of arithmetic but how could that have slipped after almost 2000 years? 
Bittu, I see you have been proselytising since you became a member here. Why do Christians feel compelled to do this? This reminds me of Gandhi who said that he could beleave in Christianity if only he could meet just one Christian. If you want people to beleave in what you are saying you must show that your faith has made a good, happy person of you but that's not what we are seeing. We see you as an unhappy, frustrated young man and this makes us all sad.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 22, 2010)

polpol ji

LOL and Good questions indeed!

I was going to wait and see whether there were going to be changes for the better. Banning is something we don't like to do here at SPN -- only as a last resort.welcomekaur

So perhaps Bittu ji will answer your question. Who knows?


----------



## polpol (Jul 22, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur, you are such a nice person! A real princess! Christians bark a lot but they do not bite HA! HA!
                          Still, Christianity is a marvellous religion originally; full of poetry and subtility like all religions. For example, the fish is the symbol of Christianity because in Greek the letters for "fish" are the abbreviations for "Jesus Christ, the son of God". When the early Christians were persecuted and had to hide, they would draw a fish on the sand with their walking stick to let the other know they were Christians. They suffered a lot and just for that they merit our respect but since those times things have changed, things have become much more political.swordfight


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 22, 2010)

polpol ji

Your words are very kind. The stories of the early Christians are an area of fascination. One of our members has a daughter who did serious research in the area of early Christian history. Perhaps he will share some of her discoveries with us. I don't want to mention names because I don't want to invade privacy that way. He can decide. 

My own knowledge is actually very limited though I was raised a Roman Catholic. My stronger areas of understanding are not in history, but more in the theology of the Roman Church.

For the most part I like to stay out of these thread as I know very little, and LOL, am here most of the time to restore order. LOL swordfight


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Jul 22, 2010)

Polpol ji and Narayanjot ji,

As you both know, I was force-fed Christianity at an early age and it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.  I try, but I'm afraid I have never really gotten very tolerant of proselytsing religions in general and Christianity, in particular.  I have, however, studied quite a lot, in self-defence, I guess.  I am certainly no expert, but the Jehovah's Witnesses have given up on me, and I consistently out-Bible my born-again, spirit-filled medical caregiver who wonders how anybody could read the whole Bible and not see the obvious truth of it.  She, however, intends to read the whole Bible for herself someday.  In the meantime, she follows Rev. John Hagee who, being anointed of God, doesn't make mistakes.  

I laugh at her a lot, but one thing I must admit, she seems very happy. :happykaur:


----------



## Lee (Aug 18, 2010)

Bittu said:


> If God is Akal (Eternal) then how does Adi Granth says that God CREATED Himself? Page 113:4, Page 250:1, Page 291:3,Page 509:1 etc.<?"urn:<img src=" />


 

Bittu Ji,

Ahh my freind that is easy.   Before there was matter there existed only God in spirit.

God created all matter from the spirt of Gods self.


----------



## Seeker9 (Aug 18, 2010)

Dear True Friend ji

All I see is your interpretation/manipulation of scripture in a way that fits science

I see no absolute literal statements

I therefore do not accept your viewpoint on this

Please don't reply with further quotes; I am happy to agree to disagree on this one!


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 18, 2010)

*Seeker9 ji

Note from Narayanjot Kaur. Recent remarks by truefriend have been  removed. You are absolutely correct in your interpretation. Furthermore,  proselytizing is forbidden. Truefriend knows this and this has been a  problem in the past. This is a Sikh forum.  truefriend ji , Please do  not misuse and abuse our hospitality.*


----------

