Truth about the Golden Compass movie

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

i absolutely see where you are coming from. life being utterly meaningless and insignificant is a bleak thought. i think it's very human to not only search for meaning, but long for it as well. this is what leads to spirituality, and when someone puts it like you have it makes me realize that life actually does have meaning (if that makes sense). and you do it without hitting me with the "btw you need to believe this or you are going to hell" business. i also don't feel like you are coming at me from a moral high ground either

i think you make a great case. i may not come to the same ultimate conclusion as you, but the way you put it is really impressive IMO.

must be the orange drank

There is no way I am going to change anyone's mind. I don't have those capabilities in and of myself. All I want to do is throw some things out there and if you agree with them great...if not then we aren't less of friends. A huge problem with Christians in general is that most don't have the capacity to "agree to disagree". That leads to the "holier than thou" attitude and that is far different that what we have been called to be. The way I understand it is that I have been called to love everyone (to include islamic extremists and child molesters) and if I am beating someone in the head with my beliefs and condmening them on the grounds of their beliefs, how is that loving? If you think about it that there is nothing harder to do....love everyone.

I appreciate the response Phreak, and I do believe it is the orange drank!

I would like to respond to Man from a mathmatical stand point but that will have to be later. I have all these kids running around right now and its hard to think.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Do all the barren worlds that are inhospitable for the most basic of life, suggest that no god exists. We can observe and question our existence because the prerequisites for our existence have already been met. We can't debate with intelligent life that has not met the prerequisites, because they do not exist. Life conforms to its environment - not the other way around. Life as we know it is dependent on the laws of the universe. We exist because the parameters for life were met here in our solar system, on this planet. They have not been met on many other planets around many other solar systems. So yeah, it takes precise parameters to create intelligent life but our reality is so big those parameters are met at times.

Scienctists are holding out hope for life on one of Saturn's moons, Enceladus. We don't even know if there is other life in our solar system much less other solar systems and galaxies. Plus, I would contend that each barren world in our solar system has a purpose to support life here on Earth. The outer gas giants act as cosmic vacuums sucking up comets and other debris so as not to have tons of collisions here on our planet. Once again I go back to my argument that the physicists have concluded that the constants of the universe are finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision in order for life to exist. “The exactitude is so incredible it defies the explanation of mere chance.

I would pose the question what is the constant in this universe that all the laws we speak of are based on? There has to be a common constant otherwise the laws never turn out the same way twice.

I took the liberty to italicize and bold a word in the comment you made. You say the precise parameters for life have been met here on Earth. I would like to direct you to a study done in the 1800's by two well known scientists, Lamark and Pasteur. They proved absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that the "spontaneous generation" of life is impossible. The latest scientific evidence shows that the "Law of Biogenesis” stands proved. It is simply impossible to generate life from dead matter. Yet life does exist!

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Good points scalleywag, and thanks for making this a reasonable discussion.

As already mentioned by clash, the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable and without life so if one is to infer anything from the state of the universe it would be that life, especially intelligent life, is an abnormallity but due to the enormous number of galaxies/planets etc the chances of life existing elsewhere is plausible although not common. The universe does not nurture our needs, we and all other life adapts to the environment or we perish.

It is a leap of faith to go from physical existence to meta-physical creation, the need for a creator is absent as if we use the first tenent of physics we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed so perhaps everything has always been (in one form or another), it matters little anyways as these are precepts we have trouble understanding due to our finate nature. What we do know is that we do exist (I think therefore I am) now that fact that we are complex creatures does not mean we must have a creator, that is using our limited human knowledge to assume that anything that is complicated must be designed (intelligent design is a long standing creationist arguement that has never held water). We could not be here if we did not adapt and become complex.

Now through the study of nature we learn the old expression red in tooth and claw (darwin of course) meaning that nature in itself is not very nice or caring. One must kill and consume in order to exist, how is that a nice situation? If we have to infer that there is a creator behind nature then we must assume it is a harsh being to creat such a situation. Nature proves that there is no "nice" god making things, it shows that the strongest survive, period!


The wonderful thing about science is that it is always adapting, that is what makes it so important. A scientist can always gain new knowledge which will lead to new conclusions, they should never assume anything is static, and therein lies the advantage of the scientific method over any other method of aquiring knowledge. Something that is a mystery today is understood tomorrow and although somethings may seem beyond our understanding, they are slowly getting solved. To say that a god is behind it because we don't understand it, is just as valid as saying superman did it or santa claus. To me it is a cope out, and that line of thinking leads to stagnation of thought. We would be no where as a species if all difficult aspects of life were still explained as supernatural. When one beleives in a creator where does one draw the line of discovery? Once we encounter a currently misunderstood discovery we assume it is the work of God ad look no further, whereas an person that has shed this idea continues to look for the answer, and I might add eventually finds it.

As for the laws of physics and matter neither being able to be created nor destroyed I would contend that is precisely the case for a Creator. Cosmoslogists have concluded that the unvierse has a finite past. An exert from an article in 1997:

The big bang model also teaches that the universe had a beginning. In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. As time moves forward, the universe is growing apart. This means that if one goes back in time the universe would be getting smaller and smaller. Eventually, if one goes back far enough into the past, the entire universe would be what scientists call "a point of infinite density." This marks the beginning of the universe, the big bang.

Anything that has a beginning has to be created. Thus I would argue that intelligent design does hold water.

Let’s look at the theory of evolution, if it is true, this theory can only give us a biological “guess” as to how humans came about. But the more fundamental question is how evolution produces the type of results it does in the first place. What must the ultimate force in the universe be like for evolution to have the kind of characteristics it has? I’m asking about the “process” itself. This is a metaphysical question which science can’t answer.

Now what I am saying is that this “process” itself can’t be pure chance. The only way we can understand why our minds can understand physical reality in the first place is by believing that the physical universe is “mind-like”. Our thinking about reality presupposes that there is a correspondence between our mind and reality. Science operates with this assumption. This is what Einstein called “the incomprehensible comprehensibility” of the universe. How is it, for example, that his theory of relativity, worked out strictly with mathematical formulas, “fits” reality? The success of his theory, which has since been demonstrated empirically, means that physical reality has the kind of mathematical structure Einstein worked out. Einstein didn’t impose his theory on reality, he discovered it. I said all of that to say that the world has been “mind like” before Einstein ever came along to see it.

Problem is that chance can NOT produce mathematical formulas. And chance can NOT produce organisms like out mind that can know and work out mathematical formulas. Look at it this way: if our minds are simply “chemicals in motion”, then any truth we may discover amounts to nothing more than a brute chemical reaction, and thus can have no more truth that a BURP. Chemical reactions are all equal on this score, regardless of how complex they are. So in essence, Einstein was just giving a complex burp with all of his theorizing.

So why does his theory work? The success of his formula, and of all science, confirms our instinctive assumptions about the mind: our mind is more than a network of chemical reactions. It can rationally comprehend physical aspects of the world because the world is rational. And since you can’t have rationality without a rational mind – you can’t have it by sheer chance – there must be a rational mind behind the physical world. Once again, nature can produce patterns but when we see information, whether in a book or a computer program, we know there is intelligence behind it.

to speak on the last part of your post:

To say that a god is behind it because we don't understand it, is just as valid as saying superman did it or santa claus. To me it is a cope out, and that line of thinking leads to stagnation of thought. We would be no where as a species if all difficult aspects of life were still explained as supernatural. When one beleives in a creator where does one draw the line of discovery? Once we encounter a currently misunderstood discovery we assume it is the work of God ad look no further, whereas an person that has shed this idea continues to look for the answer, and I might add eventually finds it.

We, as Christians, are told in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to "test all things". I would contest that it is just human nature to try to "figure things out". No matter who or what is behind an event or issue we have an inate "need to know". Me personally, I am convinced that God is the Creator but I desire to know more and more. I love the debates we are having because it makes me research and "test all things". I am convinced that one's faith has to be challenged and tested and must stand up under fire otherwise its not worth having!

[PL456]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

so there is someone else on this board that has a religious background. This thread started off with a comment about a movie that was written by a renowned atheist. I commented that I thought this was bad for people to see in general, and children in specific, as the movie's author has stated that he wishes to remove the idea of God from the minds of children. The thread has declined from there into a Christian-bashing session, again, as expected. When a Christian makes a statement based on their moral beliefs, we are told to be quiet and stop pushing our beliefs on others. I, too, have simply responded when questioned about why I say, do things. When I thought you guys were off base, I said so, and you did likewise. Our canadian friend seems to be getting a little chapped, and the photographic post placed earlier was way over the top.
Where is the respect on this board that allows such a photo of Christ with such a disrespectable comment? This behavior is disgusting to me and even those opposing my points of view should have commented on this over the top and juvenile behavior, but you didnt so apparently you agree.
I reported this post to the moderators, but, of course, there was no response. Why should I expect one when apparently, some of the moderators are acutely anti-Christian anyway?
I have been a member on this board for almost 5 years. This board has changed dramatically over those years--for the worse.

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

so there is someone else on this board that has a religious background. This thread started off with a comment about a movie that was written by a renowned atheist. I commented that I thought this was bad for people to see in general, and children in specific, as the movie's author has stated that he wishes to remove the idea of God from the minds of children. The thread has declined from there into a Christian-bashing session, again, as expected. When a Christian makes a statement based on their moral beliefs, we are told to be quiet and stop pushing our beliefs on others. I, too, have simply responded when questioned about why I say, do things. When I thought you guys were off base, I said so, and you did likewise. Our canadian friend seems to be getting a little chapped, and the photographic post placed earlier was way over the top.
Where is the respect on this board that allows such a photo of Christ with such a disrespectable comment? This behavior is disgusting to me and even those opposing my points of view should have commented on this over the top and juvenile behavior, but you didnt so apparently you agree.
I reported this post to the moderators, but, of course, there was no response. Why should I expect one when apparently, some of the moderators are acutely anti-Christian anyway?
I have been a member on this board for almost 5 years. This board has changed dramatically over those years--for the worse.

Bro, everyone has remained respectful. There is a certain amount of implied ignorance directed to others when you have these types of discussions. You cannot tell someone they are wrong without suggesting they are ignorant of a subject, which is all that is going on - that would include the picture. The debate is over ideas and beliefs - it is not directed at you personally but Christian beliefs, which you happen to be representing.

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

As for the laws of physics and matter neither being able to be created nor destroyed I would contend that is precisely the case for a Creator. Cosmoslogists have concluded that the unvierse has a finite past. An exert from an article in 1997:

The big bang model also teaches that the universe had a beginning. In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. As time moves forward, the universe is growing apart. This means that if one goes back in time the universe would be getting smaller and smaller. Eventually, if one goes back far enough into the past, the entire universe would be what scientists call "a point of infinite density." This marks the beginning of the universe, the big bang.

Anything that has a beginning has to be created. Thus I would argue that intelligent design does hold water.

Let’s look at the theory of evolution, if it is true, this theory can only give us a biological “guess” as to how humans came about. But the more fundamental question is how evolution produces the type of results it does in the first place. What must the ultimate force in the universe be like for evolution to have the kind of characteristics it has? I’m asking about the “process” itself. This is a metaphysical question which science can’t answer.

Now what I am saying is that this “process” itself can’t be pure chance. The only way we can understand why our minds can understand physical reality in the first place is by believing that the physical universe is “mind-like”. Our thinking about reality presupposes that there is a correspondence between our mind and reality. Science operates with this assumption. This is what Einstein called “the incomprehensible comprehensibility” of the universe. How is it, for example, that his theory of relativity, worked out strictly with mathematical formulas, “fits” reality? The success of his theory, which has since been demonstrated empirically, means that physical reality has the kind of mathematical structure Einstein worked out. Einstein didn’t impose his theory on reality, he discovered it. I said all of that to say that the world has been “mind like” before Einstein ever came along to see it.

Problem is that chance can NOT produce mathematical formulas. And chance can NOT produce organisms like out mind that can know and work out mathematical formulas. Look at it this way: if our minds are simply “chemicals in motion”, then any truth we may discover amounts to nothing more than a brute chemical reaction, and thus can have no more truth that a BURP. Chemical reactions are all equal on this score, regardless of how complex they are. So in essence, Einstein was just giving a complex burp with all of his theorizing.

So why does his theory work? The success of his formula, and of all science, confirms our instinctive assumptions about the mind: our mind is more than a network of chemical reactions. It can rationally comprehend physical aspects of the world because the world is rational. And since you can’t have rationality without a rational mind – you can’t have it by sheer chance – there must be a rational mind behind the physical world. Once again, nature can produce patterns but when we see information, whether in a book or a computer program, we know there is intelligence behind it.

to speak on the last part of your post:

To say that a god is behind it because we don't understand it, is just as valid as saying superman did it or santa claus. To me it is a cope out, and that line of thinking leads to stagnation of thought. We would be no where as a species if all difficult aspects of life were still explained as supernatural. When one beleives in a creator where does one draw the line of discovery? Once we encounter a currently misunderstood discovery we assume it is the work of God ad look no further, whereas an person that has shed this idea continues to look for the answer, and I might add eventually finds it.

We, as Christians, are told in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to "test all things". I would contest that it is just human nature to try to "figure things out". No matter who or what is behind an event or issue we have an inate "need to know". Me personally, I am convinced that God is the Creator but I desire to know more and more. I love the debates we are having because it makes me research and "test all things". I am convinced that one's faith has to be challenged and tested and must stand up under fire otherwise its not worth having!

Cosmologists may have concluded that the universe is expanding but to say they have concluded that the universe has a finite past is only stating there is a consensus for the big bang but not that there hasn't been other big bangs previously or elsewhere.

There are many hypothesis about our universe that oppose a finite beginning, e.g. energy and matter that make up our universe may be forced to expand out but then collapses back in on itself to repeat the cycle and the hypothesis of an ever changing and growing multiverse.

Because you have supported your belief in god on the belief that the point of the big bang was the moment of creation - you don't want to consider any other possibilities.

The world is objective and independent of man. Man uses his rational mind to observe and analyze the world to exist but to reason man must be honest with himself. Reasoning which is dependent on intellectual honesty led to the "theory of relativity". Being objective (finding the truth) keeps man alive; burps do not.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Cosmologists may have concluded that the universe is expanding but to say they have concluded that the universe has a finite past is only stating there is a consensus for the big bang but not that there hasn't been other big bangs previously or elsewhere.

The cosmologists, having weighed all the evidence, have concluded the universe has a finite past. We have no idea whether there are "other universes" therefore we are now speculating instead of looking at the evidence we have been presented.

There are many hypothesis about our universe that oppose a finite beginning, e.g. energy and matter that make up our universe may be forced to expand out but then collapses back in on itself to repeat the cycle and the hypothesis of an ever changing and growing multiverse.

Because you have supported your belief in god on the belief that the point of the big bang was the moment of creation - you don't want to consider any other possibilities.

I am strictly going off the evidence presented by well known scientists. I would contend it takes more faith to hold on to a possibility than to look at the evidence we currently have. To say I won't consider any other possibillites is off base. I became interested in this some time ago but my view has changes throughout the course of my discoveries.

The world is objective and independent of man. Man uses his rational mind to observe and analyze the world to exist but to reason man must be honest with himself. Reasoning which is dependent on intellectual honesty led to the "theory of relativity". Being objective (finding the truth) keeps man alive; burps do not.

I contend that that reality is mind-like therefore the force behind reality has to be mind like since a cause can not be greater than its effect. We can agree to disagree on this and that is perfectly fine. In all fairness though, lets not focus on that one arguement. Can you explain how we have life in the first place when it has been concluded that life can not "spontanously generate". The Law of biogenesis.

Can you also speak to the fact that it has already been concluded that nature can not produce mathmatical formulas only patterns. Yet everything can be explained mathmatically. This coming from Einstein himself.

We can agree to disagree on the universe and the big bang because truth is no one actually knows. Sure we have evidence but no "smoking gun". Lets get down to the fundamentals: how did life begin to "be"?

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

I contend that that reality is mind-like therefore the force behind reality has to be mind like since a cause can not be greater than its effect.

Sorry, got that backwards. It should have read: an effect can not be greater than its cause. Its still early here!

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Awesome scalleywag, you have no idea how happy I am that you have brought this discussion up a notch. OK where to start:

The law of biogenesis that states that life cannot arise from non-life, is specifically referring to advanced life forms (ie mice, chickens etc) not that life cannot arise from complex molecules, in other words the law is a little simplistic in and of itself in that it only takes into account advanced life not simplistic life.

Now from observation of the natural world we do not see supernatural occurances. Therefore it would be a fallacy of logic to conclude that since we do not yet conclusively know how everything got started that we must suppose a supernatural begining. If the supernatural was observed commonly then it could be included into a scientific theory, that would make sense, but in the absense of supernatural evidence of anything, there is no reason to consider it.

Now we should all know of the Miller-Urey experiment from 1953 where they used water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a sealed container, they then heated the water to create vapour, and sent a electric charge through it, letting it continually cool and condense. After a week of this they found that amino acids (13 of the 22 necessary to make protiens in a living cell) had been created. This is evidence that the compounds that make up life can be spontaniously produced by natural means and by extension that life can have a natural (not supernatural) beginning.

Now what you mentioned about a effect not being greater than its cause, take the analogy of a snowball rolling down a hill and causing an avalanche...lol the smallest of causes can have monumental effects, we know this through common observation.

Now onto mathematics. Mathematical theories that prove true about the universe we live in simply proves that humans observe their natural enviroment and that the universe has some order to it. Only in an ordered universe can a theory be produced although we do see that chaos is quite prevalent as well in the universe!

Now the big bang theory is just that a theory, and as further evidence is produced by advancing out minds and technology I am sure this again will be revised or discarded. That is the beuty of science, as new information is produced new theories can be had, thus we never assume a truth, truth must be proven. When one looks towards the supernatural one stops searching for the truth, why wouldn't anyone as they already believe they have the answer!

[mandarb11]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

so there is someone else on this board that has a religious background. This thread started off with a comment about a movie that was written by a renowned atheist. I commented that I thought this was bad for people to see in general, and children in specific, as the movie's author has stated that he wishes to remove the idea of God from the minds of children. The thread has declined from there into a Christian-bashing session, again, as expected. When a Christian makes a statement based on their moral beliefs, we are told to be quiet and stop pushing our beliefs on others. I, too, have simply responded when questioned about why I say, do things. When I thought you guys were off base, I said so, and you did likewise. Our canadian friend seems to be getting a little chapped, and the photographic post placed earlier was way over the top.
Where is the respect on this board that allows such a photo of Christ with such a disrespectable comment? This behavior is disgusting to me and even those opposing my points of view should have commented on this over the top and juvenile behavior, but you didnt so apparently you agree.
I reported this post to the moderators, but, of course, there was no response. Why should I expect one when apparently, some of the moderators are acutely anti-Christian anyway?
I have been a member on this board for almost 5 years. This board has changed dramatically over those years--for the worse.

Aw ever the martyr. Bro I respect that you have a right to an opinion, and that is great that you have shared it with us, but you offer little in the way of discussion. You never adress the points made, look back through the posts it is all about you making a statement, we respond and make our own statements, you ignore our statements and continue to make your own....and that is the extent of it.

Now you trying to make yourself out to be "one of the few" Christians on here...wow I would venture to guess that 95% of the members on here are Christian, we athiests are in the minority, just understand not everyone is comfortable in discussing religion, or politics for that matter. All we are doing conveying our opinions/ideas, that is a good thing.
Lastly if the mods here thoght that anything we said was inappropriate we would have been called on it, please show me anywhere that we are disrespectful to you or anyone else? the picture and saying that went with it did not state anything that Christian doctrine does not state, it is just done so in a way to make one examine these beleifs from an outside perspective. We must look at everything through many perspectives if we are to understand things, not just our own. Why put down this board....remember you are the one that initiated all these discussions!

[Klash]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

I contend that that reality is mind-like therefore the force behind reality has to be mind like since a cause can not be greater than its effect. We can agree to disagree on this and that is perfectly fine. In all fairness though, lets not focus on that one arguement. Can you explain how we have life in the first place when it has been concluded that life can not "spontanously generate". The Law of biogenesis.

The theists default position is "since man can't specifically explain our origins in detail, then a supernatural being must exist." Human ignorance is not a valid argument for the supernatural, just because we don't know all the details - doesn't mean a god exists.

Can you also speak to the fact that it has already been concluded that nature can not produce mathmatical formulas only patterns. Yet everything can be explained mathmatically. This coming from Einstein himself.

The universe is objective, it is consistent and behaves the same regardless of what the outcome may be. Mathematics is kind of mans way of interpreting the language of the universe.

We can agree to disagree on the universe and the big bang because truth is no one actually knows. Sure we have evidence but no "smoking gun". Lets get down to the fundamentals: how did life begin to "be"?

I always tell my mom (who is a Christian too), just because we don't know something about our origins - doesn't mean we should go around making invisible entities up to fill in the gaps.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

The theists default position is "since man can't specifically explain our origins in detail, then a supernatural being must exist." Human ignorance is not a valid argument for the supernatural, just because we don't know all the details - doesn't mean a god exists.



The universe is objective, it is consistent and behaves the same regardless of what the outcome may be. Mathematics is kind of mans way of interpreting the language of the universe.

There I would contend that even Einetein himslef says he discoverd his theories not invented them. He didn't impose his theories on nature.



I always tell my mom (who is a Christian too), just because we don't know something about our origins - doesn't mean we should go around making invisible entities up to fill in the gaps.

LOL...You tell your poor mom that. JK. There I would argue that it takes more faith to believe this is all a freak occurance that a Creator.

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Awesome scalleywag, you have no idea how happy I am that you have brought this discussion up a notch. OK where to start:

The law of biogenesis that states that life cannot arise from non-life, is specifically referring to advanced life forms (ie mice, chickens etc) not that life cannot arise from complex molecules, in other words the law is a little simplistic in and of itself in that it only takes into account advanced life not simplistic life.

Can you explain advanced life then?

Now from observation of the natural world we do not see supernatural occurances. Therefore it would be a fallacy of logic to conclude that since we do not yet conclusively know how everything got started that we must suppose a supernatural begining. If the supernatural was observed commonly then it could be included into a scientific theory, that would make sense, but in the absense of supernatural evidence of anything, there is no reason to consider it.

Now we should all know of the Miller-Urey experiment from 1953 where they used water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a sealed container, they then heated the water to create vapour, and sent a electric charge through it, letting it continually cool and condense. After a week of this they found that amino acids (13 of the 22 necessary to make protiens in a living cell) had been created. This is evidence that the compounds that make up life can be spontaniously produced by natural means and by extension that life can have a natural (not supernatural) beginning.

With all due respect, where are the other nine proteins needed to produce life and why have they not done so in the 55 years since that experiment. What keeps coming to my mind is: you can put mustard on a piece of bread but that doesn't mean you have a turkey sandwich. Much less a whole menu. I will be the first to admit that the minds behind some of the stuff they have been able to accomplish are amazing. But until they produce life they have no case.

Now what you mentioned about a effect not being greater than its cause, take the analogy of a snowball rolling down a hill and causing an avalanche...lol the smallest of causes can have monumental effects, we know this through common observation.

Now onto mathematics. Mathematical theories that prove true about the universe we live in simply proves that humans observe their natural enviroment and that the universe has some order to it. Only in an ordered universe can a theory be produced although we do see that chaos is quite prevalent as well in the universe!

What is that constant? There has to be a constant for these laws to have any basis. Einstein discovered his theories not invented them. Nature is able to produce patterns not mathmatical equations.

Now the big bang theory is just that a theory, and as further evidence is produced by advancing out minds and technology I am sure this again will be revised or discarded. That is the beuty of science, as new information is produced new theories can be had, thus we never assume a truth, truth must be proven. When one looks towards the supernatural one stops searching for the truth, why wouldn't anyone as they already believe they have the answer!

We have an inate need to know. I watch my two year old take apart his trains and cars to see why they work. Man will never quit looking for answers just because we conclude God is behind this all. In my opinion it reveals just how great God is the more we see how intricate His creation is.

Man, you guys are making my brain smoke over here. Anyone ready to convert yet? LOL!!!

[Scalleywag]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

I have to say this on a personal level. In the last two weeks I have been involved in our ongoing debate, an ongoing debate with my neighbor, and a debate with my father that is still in progress. So I walk into church Sunday and we sing a few songs, shake a few hands, and sit down to lilsten to the message. Well before the message the pastor always has a visual aid put on the screen then he talks about what he is going to talk about. Well yesterday what pops up on the screen? A picture of a galaxy. Im thinking, "youve got to be kidding". He goes on to talk about the greatness of God on a cosmic scale. Is that coincidence? Some think, yes. I think it shows God has a sense of humor!

Just had to share that.

[3Vandoo]

Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie

Atheist are now more extremist than religious!