God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[Falc]

also, new research suggests that life actually began around 3.5 bya, not 2.5. this is extremely close to the hardening of the earth's crust, and shows that the formation of life may be more common than once thought.[/QUOTE]

i want to know where you recieved this info, i have the updated text of history of science open beside me saying nothing of this, just curious.

 

[Falc]

you are correct on ure information abotu the big bang theory of 13.7bya.. i just thought id double check it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

however, what i was refferring to wasn't the origin of the unverse... i was talking about the origin of life, of single celled organisms and their creation in the archeozoic time period... thanks for clearing it up, the big bang wasnt the proper use of terms for sure. i was speaking of the event that led to the creation of the cell, or of life.

 

[Falc]

also how would u change ure picture? or your settings on here? thx

Falc

 

[snex]

JW Schopf et al. (2002). Laser-Raman imagery of Earth's earliest fossils., Nature, 416: 73-76

ABSTRACT:

Unlike the familiar Phanerozoic history of life, evolution during the earlier and much longer Precambrian segment of geological time centred on prokaryotic microbes. Because such microorganisms are minute, are preserved incompletely in geological materials, and have simple morphologies that can be mimicked by nonbiological mineral microstructures, discriminating between true microbial fossils and microscopic pseudofossil 'lookalikes' can be difficult. Thus, valid identification of fossil microbes, which is essential to understanding the prokaryote-dominated, Precambrian 85% of life's history, can require more than traditional palaeontology that is focused on morphology. By combining optically discernible morphology with analyses of chemical composition, laser--Raman spectroscopic imagery of individual microscopic fossils provides a means by which to address this need. Here we apply this technique to exceptionally ancient fossil microbe-like objects, including the oldest such specimens reported from the geological record, and show that the results obtained substantiate the biological origin of the earliest cellular fossils known.

 

[Falc]

nature eh, thats a big *** journal... in fact i think it's the biggest scientific journal out there. i'm using it as a source for my Darwin essay. cool


Falc.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Snex, I am growing tired of how you continue to take everything I say out of context, and how some points, no matter how crystal clear I make them, go in one "ear" and out the other. It is obvious that it's not a matter of objective reasoning that you choose to disagree with my evidences, but rather it is only because you don't have an open mind.

If no one else has anything to contribute, then I am done here.

 

[MoT]

I actually don't like to believe in any theory whether it be creationism, evolution, intelligent design or whatever because I do know, and no one can deny this except for maybe the dead, that none of the theories presented are accurate all the way. This is common sense because we obviously do not know everything in our universe and discoveries are being made every day but what I really dislike is how, if I may, a LOT of people will take a theory like the big bang theory or evolution or intelligent design or whatever and say that THAT is the truth and the answer and that there are so many people who will call themselves the "experts" on something and SIMPLY because of that, a vast lot of people will suddenly take what the "experts" have to say on something as truth without doing any research themselves or making any judgements for themselves.


This doesn't just apply to life theories but even politics, global warming, technology (like perhaps the Terminator might actually happen someday or I,Robot), etc etc...

Also what I dislike, gosh this is becoming some kind of rant, is how people, SO MANY people, will associate God or Allah or whatever with a Religion! GOD IS NOT PART OF A RELIGION God does not associate itself with a religion. Sure in the Bible or Koran or some holy document may show stories how God has helped certain peoples in the past or it seems God has supported only certain peoples, but really if you think about it, how can God be associated to ONLY Christianity (I'm only using this as an example) when GOD IS PRESENT IN JUDAISM OR ISLAM. How can people say God is only a thing in Catholism when God is obviously-gah you all get the point.

And this leads me back to the topic of intelligent design and evolution: Because of all these generalizations, stereotypes, and twisted judgements, people will complety shut out a conflicting and contradicting view when it is presented to them.

Just recently I was asking some friends of mine if both evolution AND intelligent design should be taught about in public and/or private and/or religious schools. If both the big bang and creationism should be taught. Now, anyone could say that intelligent design AND creationism are religious related and thus that's why they shouldn't be taught. IS that really a good reason? Should we really only introduce one side of the arguement to everyone. Being open minded to every theory, even if it is religious, should be taught so that everyone can know how to argue accordingly to both sides. It's like standing in someone else's point of view. I know some very good homeless people who used to have good jobs and make good livings and then a single disaster made them homeless and poor. Now, to someone who doesn't know them, typically, will judge a homeless and/or poor person as dangerous and perhaps a theif. I am aware that recently, or maybe it's just where I live, that there are people dressing up as hobos and going around for free money and food. But regardless, people should face other people with open minds.

You can't just say creationism is the answer and totally deny the big bang or evolution when there is evidence that is contradicting to creationism and stuff. I am so amazed at the closed mindedness of people ONLY because a theory may be related to something they don't like or believe in. Now I know that it is very unlikely creationism is the answer and I myself don't lean towards that view but again, no one knows the real answer.

In terms of what makes more sense, evolution or intelligent design, I don't know because I KNOW and everyone SHOULD KNOW that BOTH have LOOPHOLES and DEAD ENDS where we, the people, just cannot explain something.

For example, if we all, from the beginning, started and evolved from one single thing and that just somehow sprouted to many other organisms, why didn't we get wings? Why did birds get wings but we didn't? Or why did fish get gills instead of evolving to get legs or something? If we all started out from the same thing why is everything so different. I know location has to do a lot with how things adapt but seriously. And also for intelligent design, no one really knows if there is some supreme designer, some architect that has just created all that we see.

1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. Just imagine what you will "know" tomorrow. We just come up with a theory and just say it's true and whoever doesn't believe in it is totally wrong. I know this is a big generalization in itself but there are many people who are part of this generalization.

We don't know if our world was created maybe 2 minutes ago. It's possible! Everything could just be planted instantly and we could just be where we are just instantly. You can't prove it wrong but you can't prove it right, right? The end of the world could have been 7 minutes ago, but wait! Wasn't the world created 2 minutes ago? Well WE DON'T KNOW AND WE NEVER WILL.

And now, I am getting to the point where I will just blatantly repeat stuff. So just to summarize:
1) I don't believe that any theory is really true because we will never really know until, perhaps, we are dead. Even then we may not know.
2) We shouldn't allow stereotypes, generalizations, and twisted judgements, and hate or love for something to keep a closed mind on things. KEEP AN OPEN MIND.
3) We shouldn't associate God with a single religion because how can we when he is in so many religions!
4) When I say theory, for the most part, I am using it in terms of a general theory, something unproven, not a scientific theory, something that has been researched and proven...like the cell theory.

I would also like to say a lot of people have very interesting opinions *is reading through all the responses *

 

[snex]

mot, perhaps you would do well to actually study the intelligent design movement, and you would realize that it is not a theory at all. "intelligent design" is a vacuous god-of-the-gaps argument with no positive content or ideas on how life came about. it is nothing more than a trojan horse designed to sneak creationism (i.e. religion) into public, tax-funded schools after a 1987 supreme court decision declared it could not be taught. there is currently a trial going on in dover, pennsylvania about the use of intelligent design in classrooms, kitzmiller vs dover area school district. you can read the transcripts of the case as it moves on here. if you go through them, you will clearly see that intelligent design is not a theory, it is not scientific, and it is just a ruse to force children to learn religion on tax dollars.

you would also do well to research evolutionary theory and big bang cosmology, as they are extremely well-represented by vast bodies of evidence from many independent realms of science.

 

[awesomestnerd]

snex, maybe YOU should represent intelligent design. I hate it when people say there is no evidence, because there is evidence. The best website I have found to represent that is answersingenesis.com.

You know mot, that actually isn't a bad idea. Teaching both theories is a good solution to all the feuding about God in schools and only teaching evolution. I swear, one of my text books is trying to prove evolution to me once every page. But that would give kids a chance to choose, rather than one being forced.

 

[snex]

if creationism and intelligent design are theories, then please list the main tenets of how these theories say the current life forms came to exist. they must also explain the genetic relationships between those organisms, they must explain all fossil data, all biogeographical data, all embryological data, all morphological data, AND, heres the kicker, those explanations must be FALSIFIABLE. that is, there must be some experiment we can perform that could show that the theories are false.

if you cannot do this, (and answersingenesis.com or any other creationist/ID website has not), then you must admit that these ideas are not scientific.

 

[Master Fox]

Ok, I just hit new information that proves the Earth's age of 6000 completely out of the water and my source for all of this is my astronomy class. The poles of the Earth actually rotate due to the fact that the equator bulges outward. It takes the poles 26,000 years to make a complete rotation. The study of this has been going on for 12,000 years, since the end of the last ice age, observed but the Greeks and mathematically proven. In 12,000 years from now, we will enter a new ice age because the North Pole will be closest to the Sun, the Earth's magnetic field blocking out much of the Sun's heat. And in all of human existence, humans have recorded 18 ice ages. 26,000 X 18 = 468,000 but don't confuse that with the age of the Earth, that is only how long humans have recorded Ice Ages.

Also, if you want proof the Carbondating works, think about this: If carbondating doesn't work, why are you able to watch images pass by on you computer screen and your television screen? Its the same technology. Think about it...

First, it's a THEORY. NOT LAW.

Doesn't mean that the Big Bang Theory is false. Infact, in science, a law and a theory are infact the same axact thing. They stopped calling new discoveries "laws" 300 years ago and now call them "theories". I'd suggest that you get you facts (or theories) straght before you post...and stay away from short posts. This is a debate on a forum, not a chat room debate.

Gravity is a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. The creationist rhetoric of "it's only a theory!" gets tiresome sometimes. The word "theory" has such a different meaning in a scientific context.

Exactly correct!

I'm in school. Got to go.

Forum, Not Chatroom! Please reframe from spamming please! This post has nothing to do with this debate so its considered spam. Please don't spam up this topic.
...and take off your signature in the Debate Hall.
Falc: please reframe from double posting. In a forum, its considered illegal.
MoT: I have to agree with you. I have noticed very closed minded talk on this debate but that's human nature for you.

1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. Just imagine what you will "know" tomorrow.

You so got that from Men In Black! K said it to J before J become part of the CIA's alien division. However, this coment is very true however.
Also, there is a new idea going around doctors stating that a Spagetti Monster created everything and controlles evolution. They use the same points as Creationist use for Intellegent design...THE SAME EXACT!...just replacing God with a spagetti monster. This means that the points of Intellegent Design, a more evolved form of Creation that allows Evolution, is just not enough evidence to prove that it is correct. The doctors' hypothesis of the Spagetti Monster just shows how rediculus Intellegent Design and creation really sound because the points used can prove anything basically if we were to accept it. I could say that I control everything in the Universe and you would be able to prove me wrong though i would be able to prove myself correct, creating a stand-off. If Jesus ever stated that he was the son of God (which he never did as I recall), how would he prove that he was? How?

Second Prophecy

Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21: "He [Jesus Christ] viewed the city [Jerusalem] and wept over it, saying: ...'The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not lave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.'" Two days later, he counseled his disciples: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw." (Prophecy spoken by Jesus Christ in 33 C.E.)

I'm using this post here as an example that the Bible being mistranslated. If you would take notice of the Bracets around "Jesus Christ" and "Jerusalem"...the bracettes are supposedly used to translate what is being stated, however, it is very possible that Luke was talking about someone else or was talking about another city. I see that these were assumptions to fit the views of the Christian religion, suiting the illusion that the Bible is correct.

Believe it or not, you were perfect when you were born.

There is no such thing as perfect except in math. Also, Christians believe in Original Sin!

Unfortunately, later in your life you made some bad choices and now you are a sinner,

This completely contradicts your claim that we were born perfect for if we were born perfect, we would stay perfect forever. Nothing would change us because we were perfect. Infinity minus any number still equals infinity unless it is multiplied by zero but the zero multiplication table doesn't apply to this. Just "infinity - x = infinity ; x = any number but infinity".

You and snex seem to fall victim to the same lack of insight. (1) I didn't say God exists in another dimenion; I said he exists outside of the universe, and (2) any and all dimensions, first, second, twenty-third, etc., are all natural parts of the universe, so God would not exist in any of these either.

He has to exist in one of them. To say that he does not is just like saying that he doesn't exist. And You were trying to explain that God is just like a programmer, programing everything in the universe. Just so you know, you can glims and control the 2nd and 3rd dimensions with a computer while we are in the fourth dimension. So, therefore, you did state that God is another dimension that controls our dimension.
And don't get pissed off because we don't believe your evidence. We see that your evidence is not really proof of everything. We have been throwing out evidence as well but you fail to recognize them. Example:

Here ten missing links for all the creationists.

Fox_Rox has provided evidence of 10 missing links of the human evolution for Creationists were stating that there are no missing links. Who ever claimed that there are no missing links just got proven wrong. BTW...Fox_Rox's post was a link and I brought over the link.
So, physical evidence for Evolution is present, something I can't say for Creationism. Getting frustrated over it won't change anything...

 

[MoT]

Yup I did get that quote from Men and Black. I just love that quote in itself anyways.
Anyways, I hold my position on the whole theory thing: I won't really believe any of them and I probably never will unless it's all revealed at death (that could make an interesting movie xD), because again, the whole universe could have been created simply a minute ago and everything, the evidence, the science, the math etc could just have been placed here and there's no way to prove that wrong but there's no way to prove it right. Oh well, the suspense is killing me...I hope it lasts (do you know what movie that quote is from? xD)

 

[snex]

the whole universe could have been created simply a minute ago and everything, the evidence, the science, the math etc could just have been placed here and there's no way to prove that wrong but there's no way to prove it right.

solipsism has never been useful for anything. why dont you study the facts? if you have no problem with gravity or heliocentrism, why should the origin of life and the universe be any different? do you really think humans are so stupid as to not be able to figure things out?

 

[MoT]

solipsism has never been useful for anything. why dont you study the facts? if you have no problem with gravity or heliocentrism, why should the origin of life and the universe be any different? do you really think humans are so stupid as to not be able to figure things out?

I don't think humans are so studid as to not be able to figure things out. I'm just saying that it is totally possible that "the facts," "gravity," "and the rest of the universe simply could have been made just seconds or minutes ago.

But, I'm not saying I am totally against evolutionism and that stuff. Sure, I believe in the fossils and stuff and all the "facts" that show that the origin of life was so and so long ago and I believe that it's possible there is a God, I also believe it's possible in...etc you get the point? I'm not against anything, I'm just one of those guys who doesn't really give a pennyworth of thought into it. I would rather be with "ignorance is bliss" than know that perhaps everything is being ruled by "a spaghetti monster." I'm not saying that's what is, I'm just not really affected and I don't want to be affected by "the facts." If they have an effect on me and how I live and I don't know about it and it doesn't really affect specifically what I do, I don't mind. If it does bother me, then I would mind, but I'm just not at that point.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

I'm using this post here as an example that the Bible being mistranslated. If you would take notice of the Bracets around "Jesus Christ" and "Jerusalem"...the bracettes are supposedly used to translate what is being stated, however, it is very possible that Luke was talking about someone else or was talking about another city. I see that these were assumptions to fit the views of the Christian religion, suiting the illusion that the Bible is correct.

Um, considering the fact that they were overlooking Jerusalem, and the fact that Jesus was obviously the one speaking as noted in the verses beforehand, there's hardly any reason to say anyone else was speaking about some other city. Also, the description depicted here by Jesus of the forcoming events perfectly fits the events of Jerusalem's destruction.

So no, these verses were not taken out of context

He has to exist in one of them. To say that he does not is just like saying that he doesn't exist. And You were trying to explain that God is just like a programmer, programing everything in the universe. Just so you know, you can glims and control the 2nd and 3rd dimensions with a computer while we are in the fourth dimension. So, therefore, you did state that God is another dimension that controls our dimension.

I'm really getting sick and tired of explaining this point over and over. See below

And don't get pissed off because we don't believe your evidence. We see that your evidence is not really proof of everything. We have been throwing out evidence as well but you fail to recognize them.

I'm not pissed off because you don't believe in my evidence. I'm annoyed that for some reason I have to keep explaining the same points over and over. Snex is obviously an intelligent person, so I don't think it's a matter of him not getting it; it's simply that he doesn't want to understand.

I don't have the time to be arguing with people who don't have an open mind, as the mind cannot be convinced of what it doesn't want to believe.

 

[snex]

theres nothing not to get enigmaticcam. you seem to think "existing outside the universe" (if this phrase even makes sense, many physicists think it does not) is a get-out-of-jail-free card for god to not have to give us evidence before we believe in him. not even god gets such a privilage. if you want to arbitrarily declare things "outside the universe" as off limits to scientific enquiry, then you must also admit that allah, shiva, thor, zues, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, and anything else that people can say "exists outside the universe" must also exist.

your argument holds no ground, it is merely a rhetorical excuse to not have to provide evidence for your claims. well it doesnt fly. this isnt sunday school. fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

 

[MoT]

theres nothing not to get enigmaticcam. you seem to think "existing outside the universe" (if this phrase even makes sense, many physicists think it does not) is a get-out-of-jail-free card for god to not have to give us evidence before we believe in him. not even god gets such a privilage. if you want to arbitrarily declare things "outside the universe" as off limits to scientific enquiry, then you must also admit that allah, shiva, thor, zues, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, and anything else that people can say "exists outside the universe" must also exist.

your argument holds no ground, it is merely a rhetorical excuse to not have to provide evidence for your claims. well it doesnt fly. this isnt sunday school. fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

Am I making fantastic claims? Does my opinion need evidence? The only claim I am making is that I don't know what is the "real deal" behind life or the universe and that I don't really care. What evidence do you need for that opinion?

 

[snex]

mot you arent making any claims at all, and if you dont care, i dont see why you are even in this debate.

also enigmaticcam, im still waiting to hear your alternative method of gaining knowledge about the external world.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

theres nothing not to get enigmaticcam. you seem to think "existing outside the universe" (if this phrase even makes sense, many physicists think it does not) is a get-out-of-jail-free card for god to not have to give us evidence before we believe in him. not even god gets such a privilage. if you want to arbitrarily declare things "outside the universe" as off limits to scientific enquiry, then you must also admit that allah, shiva, thor, zues, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, and anything else that people can say "exists outside the universe" must also exist.

your argument holds no ground, it is merely a rhetorical excuse to not have to provide evidence for your claims. well it doesnt fly. this isnt sunday school. fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

I think it's quite simple, really. Under the assumption that God created the universe, the following must be true:

(1). God created the universe
(2). If God created the universe, he existed before it
(3). If God existed before he created the universe, he does not exist in the universe.

And again, this is where you've taken what I say out of context. I am not using this logic as an excuse for anything. If I did, I wouldn't have posted the prophecies in the first place, as they obviously are in fact a part of this universe. The whole point in me saying this in the first place was in response to your claim that, since the existence of a supernatural being "violates certain scientific assumptions," such a being cannot exist. However, I think I've made it clear that if a being did exist, it would be sujective to anything BUT the laws of the universe from which these scientific assumptions originated from.

 

[Lanowen]

I think it's quite simple, really. Under the assumption that God created the universe, the following must be true:

(1). God created the universe
(2). If God created the universe, he existed before it
(3). If God existed before he created the universe, he does not exist in the universe.

And again, this is where you've taken what I say out of context. I am not using this logic as an excuse for anything. If I did, I wouldn't have posted the prophecies in the first place, as they obviously are in fact a part of this universe. The whole point in me saying this in the first place was in response to your claim that, since the existence of a supernatural being "violates certain scientific assumptions," such a being cannot exist. However, I think I've made it clear that if a being did exist, it would be sujective to anything BUT the laws of the universe from which these scientific assumptions originated from.

I think assumptions hold no ground in a debate, unless asking a hypothetical question. And right now, I think hypothetical questions are useless in a debate.

Again, I stress that this debate is endless. Creationists won't give up even though they have no viable proof in a debate and they will not believe Evolutionist, and the Evolutionsist won't believe creationist since they have no viable proof.

 

[Sephiroth27]

Okay, I may have screwed up, but now I’m back on track. You are right. There is no such thing as the Law of Perpetual Motion. I made that up. HOWEVER, there is the Conservation of Angular Momentum. An example of the Conservation of Angular Momentum would be little kids on a Merry Go Round going at 800 miles an hour clockwise and then flying off. The kids would fly off and their bodies would be spinning the same way as the Merry Go Round….clockwise. This Angular Momentum, if the big bang theory were true, would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. In reality, our sun spins very slowly while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only about 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis, a.k.a. big bang theory. If everything started as a “big swirling dot” (big bang theory) and exploded, shouldn’t everything be spinning the same way? Yes it should. So can you tell me why two, possibly three planets are spinning backwards? (Uranus, Venus, Pluto). Can you tell me why 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards? Can you tell me why 4 planets have moons going both directions at the same time? Can you explain to me why some whole galaxies are spinning backwards? Also, if the big bang theory were true, the matter in the universe would be evenly distributed. Instead, it is………”lumpy” if you will. There are clusters of stars, and then great voids.

(Also, my signature pertains to SSBM and SSBM only. You ASSUMED that it pertained to more. You were wrong)

 

[EnigmaticCam]

I think assumptions hold no ground in a debate, unless asking a hypothetical question. And right now, I think hypothetical questions are useless in a debate.

Again, I stress that this debate is endless. Creationists won't give up even though they have no viable proof in a debate and they will not believe Evolutionist, and the Evolutionsist won't believe creationist since they have no viable proof.

I'm not assuming anything. These assumptions are 'for the sake of argument'. How else can we rationalize anything? If you want to prove that God doesn't exist, you give reasons as to why he couldn't exist; "If God existed, these are the conflicts...," etc. You thus argue under the assumption that God exists. If I want to prove that evolution could not have happened, I give reasons as to why; "If we evolved from one-celled organisms, these are the conflicts..." It's the very basis of argument

But that last part, I couldn't agree more. No matter who's side you're on, there's a wealth of information for you to quote. I can quote references supporting my side of the argument just as much as anybody can support their side of the argument. You have to make a decision for yourself.

 

[blazedaces]

big bang theory. If everything started as a “big swirling dot” (big bang theory) and exploded, shouldn’t everything be spinning the same way? Yes it should. So can you tell me why two, possibly three planets are spinning backwards? (Uranus, Venus, Pluto). Can you tell me why 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards? Can you tell me why 4 planets have moons going both directions at the same time?

This is how science works: we look at observations, create hypothesis based on them (not on supposed idiotic proposals), then run experiments that can provide evidence for them and start over if we're wrong. This is the data: planets are spinning in opposite directions. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the big bang either was not spinning at all or wasn't spinng so fast, but the collision (why do the kids flying off the merry go round ever stop? because they hit something) of other matter/friction or any other possible forces caused spin in another direction. Most probably since the chances of it not spinning at all are small it's probably the latter choice, but that's not the point. It says no where that the big bang came from a spinning ball. This idea is taken out of no where. The big bang is based on physics, you actually think the most respected scientists in the world would overlook a simple law of it?

Can you explain to me why some whole galaxies are spinning backwards? Also, if the big bang theory were true, the matter in the universe would be evenly distributed. Instead, it is………”lumpy” if you will. There are clusters of stars, and then great voids.

(Also, my signature pertains to SSBM and SSBM only. You ASSUMED that it pertained to more. You were wrong)

You actually just listen to the very first thing you hear? You didn't even stop to think what you're prophesizing? That in the universe gravity would never take efffect?

I mean, why in the world would objects actually attract each other? I mean, somebody should make up a force, and we could call it... gravity, ya gravity. Somehow this would be proportional to the product of each object's mass and inversely proportional to just maybe the square of the distance between them . God, what a preposterous idea. If that were true, then objects would form clusters, like planets, rocks, stars, elements would clump together, boy that would be abnormal and completely against our predictions and observations. Oh, but here's the wierdest idea of all. Perhaps somehow this force could be so strong at close ranges to cause molecules to fuse and in that case radiate energy to other planets, releasing heat and the potential to cause life.

 

[snex]

I think it's quite simple, really. Under the assumption that God created the universe, the following must be true:

(1). God created the universe
(2). If God created the universe, he existed before it
(3). If God existed before he created the universe, he does not exist in the universe.

And again, this is where you've taken what I say out of context. I am not using this logic as an excuse for anything. If I did, I wouldn't have posted the prophecies in the first place, as they obviously are in fact a part of this universe. The whole point in me saying this in the first place was in response to your claim that, since the existence of a supernatural being "violates certain scientific assumptions," such a being cannot exist. However, I think I've made it clear that if a being did exist, it would be sujective to anything BUT the laws of the universe from which these scientific assumptions originated from.

im not taking it out of context. youre ignoring the fact that its irrelevent where or how god exists. if he wants us to discover him, the method we must use to do so is science. until you, or anybody else, provides another way to gain knowledge about the EXTERNAL WORLD (not universe), we are justified in disbelief. and, i never said that a supernatural being cannot exist because it is not studiable by science, i said we are justified to disbelieve in it when we cannot study it using science. there might be an invisible gnome right behind my head, but i cant use science to determine whether such a notion is true or false, so i am justified in disbelieving in it.

Okay, I may have screwed up, but now I’m back on track. You are right. There is no such thing as the Law of Perpetual Motion. I made that up. HOWEVER, there is the Conservation of Angular Momentum. An example of the Conservation of Angular Momentum would be little kids on a Merry Go Round going at 800 miles an hour clockwise and then flying off. The kids would fly off and their bodies would be spinning the same way as the Merry Go Round….clockwise. This Angular Momentum, if the big bang theory were true, would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. In reality, our sun spins very slowly while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only about 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis, a.k.a. big bang theory. If everything started as a “big swirling dot” (big bang theory) and exploded, shouldn’t everything be spinning the same way? Yes it should. So can you tell me why two, possibly three planets are spinning backwards? (Uranus, Venus, Pluto). Can you tell me why 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards? Can you tell me why 4 planets have moons going both directions at the same time? Can you explain to me why some whole galaxies are spinning backwards? Also, if the big bang theory were true, the matter in the universe would be evenly distributed. Instead, it is………”lumpy” if you will. There are clusters of stars, and then great voids.

hint: dont get your science from kent hovind.

lets go back to your kids on a merry-go-round example. what happens if two of those kids collide mid-air? couldnt they reverse their directions of spin? of course they could. and collisions happen all the time in space. they happen every day on earth! also, "big swirling dot" is a strawman invented by kent hovind. NO SCIENTIST ANYWHERE says this. if you want to argue against science, you need to understand what SCIENTISTS are claiming, not what creationists say they are claiming. the big bang has ZERO net spin, so we should expect the universe itself to have ZERO net spin. galaxies spinning clockwise (from above) will equal the number of galaxies spinning counterclockwise. note, this only applies to galaxies, because the things within a galaxy will spin predominantly the same way as the galaxy (unless collisions reverse them).

You actually just listen to the very first thing you hear? You didn't even stop to think what you're prophesizing? That in the universe gravity would never take efffect?

actually, classical big bang cosmology cannot handle the lumpiness problem. if the big bang were the whole picture, we should expect uniformity throughout space. however, there is a somewhat new idea called "inflationary big bang cosmology" that states that near the beginning of the universe, there was an extremely rapid expansion period, which then gradually slowed down to the expansion period we see today. this rapid expansion magnified small quantum fluctuations in the existing space, which became the lumpiness we see today. the very recent WMAP satellite data has provided strong evidence that inflation is correct. for a better treatment on it than i can give, read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

 

[Alastor_N_Cross]

Im a believer in the big bang/ evolution theory. Im what you would call an agnostic (doubter). I believe through evolution that Jesus is a possibility. even in todays society one can gain the complete control of thier minds and yes walk on water. its a simple gesture of telekinesis. Anyway back on the original subject, Im not going to say there is no god, but im not gonna say there is one either. I like to think that we don't die and go to heaven or hell, we replenish this planet we call earth with our souls. I believe that if the human soul dies out our world will become a hellish pit of ic rage. anyone wanna argue my views on life.

 

[snex]

Im a believer in the big bang/ evolution theory. Im what you would call an agnostic (doubter). I believe through evolution that Jesus is a possibility. even in todays society one can gain the complete control of thier minds and yes walk on water. its a simple gesture of telekinesis. Anyway back on the original subject, Im not going to say there is no god, but im not gonna say there is one either. I like to think that we don't die and go to heaven or hell, we replenish this planet we call earth with our souls. I believe that if the human soul dies out our world will become a hellish pit of ic rage. anyone wanna argue my views on life.

they are just as nonsensical as theistic ones. there is no such thing as telekinesis or any other psychic powers, and there is no evidence for "souls."

 

[tsetse]

they are just as nonsensical as theistic ones. there is no such thing as telekinesis or any other psychic powers, and there is no evidence for "souls."

Let me rebute this with *yawn*, Snex up to his old tricksies. Well let me see if i remember how this goes snex says no God someone say yes God exist and (he's great) snex says they found a rock or fossil that predates time itslef somewhere that disproves this and then talks sounding somewhat educated then wash rinse and repeat. ok.

 

[snex]

is tsetse prepared to offer us another method of gaining knowledge about the external world besides science?

 

[Crimson King]

Ironically, the bible itself states that Jesus did not walk ON water but near the water.

I forgot which gospel it was but instead of saying Jesus got out of the boat on walked on the water (a manner of speech) it says he got out of the boat and walked along the shore.

Just throwing that one out there.

 

[snex]

Matthew 14:22-33
Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."

"Come," he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Mark 6:45-52
Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.

When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

John 6:16-21
When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid." Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

I never did get to this, so here you go:

irrelevant. the gospel writers were not text analyzers and did not live either during isaiah's time or deutero-isaiah's time.

Irrelevant. Neither did you, I, or any reference you could ever quote live during Isaiah's time or deutero-isaiah.

irrelevant. the entire point of deutero-isaiah was to make it seem like prophecies were fulfilled, and so the copyist would have fallen for the trick. the copyist was not a text analyzer and did not live either during isaiah's time or deutero-isaiah's time.

Irrelevant. See above.

irrelevant. the entire point of deutero-isaiah was to make it seem like prophecies were fulfilled.

You're dodging the point. Go back, reread it, and answer the objection.

false.

False (Boy, this works real well! How about I just respond "false" to all your objections, and I'll have you in my iron grip of reason!)

1. There are striking stylistic variations and differences in vocabulary. Not only does Isaiah 40-55 form a unity of thought and emphasis centered in the restoration from Babylonian captivity, but the style of writing differs from II Isaiah. Isaiah of Jerusalem used brief, emphatic diction so familiar in eighth century prophetic oracles. His vocabulary is limited and his utterances are designed for delivery to specific audiences. Deutero-Isaiah's work is more uniform and lyrical in style, more hymnic in quality, and more extensive in vocabulary.

On the contrary, the entire book of Isaiah is quite unified in volcabulary

(1). The phrase "the Holy One of Israel" is found 12 times in Isaiah chapters 1 to 39 and 13 times in Isaiah chapters 40 to 66. Why is this of any meaning? Because this very phrase can only be found 6 times elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures

(2). Both portions of the book contain distinctive figures of speech, such as the woman with birth pains (Isaiah 13:8; 21:3; 26:17, 18; 42:14; 45:10; 54:1; 66:7) and a "way" or a "highway" (Isaiah 11:16; 19:23; 35:8; 40:3; 43:19; 49:11; 57:14; 62:10). Also repeated references to "Zion", 29 times in chapters to to 39 and 18 times in chapters 40 to 66, and this reference can be found more times in Isaiah than in any other Bible book.

And just for kicks, here's another reference for ya: In Jewish historian Flavious Josephus' book "Jewish Antiquities", BookXI, chapter 1, not only does he agree that Isaiah's writings were in the eight century B.C.E, but he also states that Cyrus was aware of these prophecies: "These things Cyrus knew from reading the book of prophecy which Isaiah had left behind two hundred and ten years earlier." Josephus also stated that this knowledge contributed to Cyrus' willings to send the jews back to their homeland, and stated that Cyrus was "seized by a strong desire and ambition to do what had been written."

2. ....Such detailed information could not have been known to Isaiah of Jerusalem, for the Persian nation did not come into existence until after the eighth century.

Um, this is exactly why we're talking about this in the first place. Isaiah prophecied the medo-persion conquest of Babylon 200 years in advance, and you've yet to prove otherwise.

3. There is a difference in theological content. Isaiah of Jerusalem preached doom, the proximity of punishment, and the remnant concept. Isaiah of Babylon announced that the punishment was past, suffering was over, and deliverance was at hand.

Difference in theological content? The book of isaiah deals with plenty of issues that haromonizes with the rest of the Bible, primarily concerning the time of isaiah's day as well as ours. Just because the book's 75 pages don't talk about one thing over and over doesn't mean is was subdivided among other authors. That's like dismissing the book of Genesis because one minute it deals with the six 'days' of creation, and the next it's talking about the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah.

it does matter. we are talking about the opinions of experts whose sole purpose is to study the phenomena in question vs laypeople who didnt know anything at all in the ancient world. a majority of experts agreeing means a lot.

A "majority of experts" believed the Bible was wrong in saying a rabbit "chewed the cud," only to learn this was in fact true. A "majority of experts" believed Belshazzar, referred to in the book of Daniel, did not exist, only to discover cuneiform tablets refering to him by name. You see, when it comes to the Bible, there is an exception to this rule of majority: a "majority of experts" almost always will side against it because of what I said before - once they admit the Bible is authentic, they suddenly have an obligation towards God and are held accountable for how they live their lives. Certinaly, if a "majority of experts" have been wrong before about the Bible, and given the evidence I've shown here, they can be wrong in this case

your point is irrelevant. luke was written after the destruction of the temple, so luke knew the destruction of the temple happened. if he wanted to, he could have written that jesus predicted it when in fact no such thing occurred. you need to prove that the prediction was written/spoken before the event in question, otherwise there is no prophecy.

Funny how you say my point is irrelevant, yet you support this with a rebuttle against anything but my point. Since you're not willing to go back and try to understand what I said, I guess there's no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

if god wanted us to find him, science would be the ONLY WAY TO DO SO. until

This is what I mean by not having an open mind.

then answer the objections.

What objections? I saw none that had to do with the context of my illustration.

there might be an invisible gnome right behind my head, but i cant use science to determine whether such a notion is true or false, so i am justified in disbelieving in it.

What if the gnome created the universe, you, I, and all life, created adam and eve, destroyed his angelic enemies that took humanly bodies with a vast flood that covered the earth, rescued the israelites from Egypt with 10 plagues and the parting of the red sea, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky, sent his son down to the earth as a ransom sacrifice and performed miralces such as raising people from the dead, foretold events thousands of years ago that take place in our day like the rise of the anglo-american world power and the united nations, recorded all these events in what is considered the most widespread and oldest book ever, and which has proved to be the most influential book ever written?

That'd be one invisible gnome I'd like to know more about.

 

[snex]

I never did get to this, so here you go:

Irrelevant. Neither did you, I, or any reference you could ever quote live during Isaiah's time or deutero-isaiah.

Irrelevant. See above.

You're dodging the point. Go back, reread it, and answer the objection.

the point is that since nobody from isaiah's time was alive, we can only base opinions on what the best evidence shows. and the best evidence shows more than one author for isaiah. you are choosing to ignore the evidence in favor of a dogma of inerrancy.

False (Boy, this works real well! How about I just respond "false" to all your objections, and I'll have you in my iron grip of reason!)

my assertion had just as much weight as yours.

On the contrary, the entire book of Isaiah is quite unified in volcabulary

who said anything about vocabulary? i said style. using the same phrases does not point to a single author. if multiple authors wanted to TRICK people into thinking it was one, they would go out of their way to use the same phrases. it is the subtle differences that matter.

some excerpts from http://www.cresourcei.org/isaiahunity.html (it is too long to paste completely, so go there and read it):

There are several references to the temple in Jerusalem being destroyed as if it were an event some time removed in the past (44:26-28, 52:8-9, possibly 51:3). This happened in 586 BC as the Babylonians captured and destroyed the temple along with Jerusalem itself. While some want to argue that this is simply predictive prophecy, that perspective again invokes certain assumptions that stand outside the biblical text itself. The most reasonable interpretation of those passages apart from that assumption is that they come from a time after the temple was destroyed. This is especially true of those passages that anticipate rebuilding the temple and the city (44:26).

And just for kicks, here's another reference for ya: In Jewish historian Flavious Josephus' book "Jewish Antiquities", BookXI, chapter 1, not only does he agree that Isaiah's writings were in the eight century B.C.E, but he also states that Cyrus was aware of these prophecies: "These things Cyrus knew from reading the book of prophecy which Isaiah had left behind two hundred and ten years earlier." Josephus also stated that this knowledge contributed to Cyrus' willings to send the jews back to their homeland, and stated that Cyrus was "seized by a strong desire and ambition to do what had been written."

what do i care what josephus thinks? he did not know cyrus and did not know cyrus' thoughts. lets see some writings from cyrus to prove this.

Um, this is exactly why we're talking about this in the first place. Isaiah prophecied the medo-persion conquest of Babylon 200 years in advance, and you've yet to prove otherwise.

ive given a more plausible alternative. natural explanations are more plausible than supernatural ones. it is you who has yet to back up your case.

Difference in theological content? The book of isaiah deals with plenty of issues that haromonizes with the rest of the Bible, primarily concerning the time of isaiah's day as well as ours. Just because the book's 75 pages don't talk about one thing over and over doesn't mean is was subdivided among other authors. That's like dismissing the book of Genesis because one minute it deals with the six 'days' of creation, and the next it's talking about the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah.

no, its like dismissing a single author for the book of genesis, and thats exactly what scholars do. genesis has several different authors, none of which were moses.

A "majority of experts" believed the Bible was wrong in saying a rabbit "chewed the cud," only to learn this was in fact true. A "majority of experts" believed Belshazzar, referred to in the book of Daniel, did not exist, only to discover cuneiform tablets refering to him by name.

rabbits never did and still dont chew the cud. you are thinking of a hyrax, which is more related to an elephant than anything else. regarding belshazzar, nobody disputes that he existed. the fact of the matter is that he was never king, as daniel claims.

You see, when it comes to the Bible, there is an exception to this rule of majority: a "majority of experts" almost always will side against it because of what I said before - once they admit the Bible is authentic, they suddenly have an obligation towards God and are held accountable for how they live their lives. Certinaly, if a "majority of experts" have been wrong before about the Bible, and given the evidence I've shown here, they can be wrong in this case

if you do not stop using this pathetic ad hominem, i will make sure the mods give you ample warning over it. i suggest you apologize immediately and never say this again. you are both insulting people and lying.

Funny how you say my point is irrelevant, yet you support this with a rebuttle against anything but my point. Since you're not willing to go back and try to understand what I said, I guess there's no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

you have no point. you ignore the facts.

fact 1: luke wrote after the event with the romans in jersusalem.
fact 2: luke wanted people to think jesus could predict the future.
most obvious explanation: luke quoted jesus as saying something he never said.

this explanation is again, much more likely than any supernatural one.

This is what I mean by not having an open mind.

What objections? I saw none that had to do with the context of my illustration.

are you going to give us the alternative method to gaining knowledge about the external world or are you going to continue floundering in your ignorance? this is the fouth or fifth time i have challenged you to give it, yet you continue to refuse. either give us a method for gaining knowledge about the external world or you will be ignored from now on.

What if the gnome created the universe, you, I, and all life, created adam and eve, destroyed his angelic enemies that took humanly bodies with a vast flood that covered the earth, rescued the israelites from Egypt with 10 plagues and the parting of the red sea, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky, sent his son down to the earth as a ransom sacrifice and performed miralces such as raising people from the dead, foretold events thousands of years ago that take place in our day like the rise of the anglo-american world power and the united nations, recorded all these events in what is considered the most widespread and oldest book ever, and which has proved to be the most influential book ever written?

That'd be one invisible gnome I'd like to know more about.

ok. guess what. he did. you better start worshipping when i turn around from now on.

 

[Crimson King]

Hmm heated debate now.

I have made my points and my stance on this, but I'd like to say a few things.

My biggest problem with creation is that it defies what we, as an intelligent race, accept. We know the earth is older than 6,000 years, we know there were dinosaurs before humans, and we know humans existed well before written accounts. We know this because there is EVIDENCE, something Religion wishes to ignore.

The bible is a great story. It has war, death, sex, violence, everything of an epic movie, but's just that, a story. I know Jesus did indeed exist, but the biggest problem with the bible is the contradictions. For example, how could God just create Adam and Eve then suddenly, when one of their male children kills the other male child and is outcast by them he is able to arrive at a villiage. Sure, the common argument is, it's not literal but a story, then so is Jesus' life and all Christians are basing life on a fictional story.

Anyone care to defend that one? Not to side track anyone off of Snex's argument, but I am interested. How can some of the book be literal and other parts not. It's either all or nothing.

 

[Yahweh]

For example, how could God just create Adam and Eve then suddenly, when one of their male children kills the other male child and is outcast by them he is able to arrive at a villiage

When people say the Bible has contradictions this seems to be the first one they go for. God told Adam and Eve to populate the Earth, I doubt Cain and Abel were the only children they had. Adam lived 900+ years so he would have had a ton of children.

Read this for further clarification:

Question: “Who was Cain's wife? Was Cain's wife his sister?"

Answer: The Bible does not specifically say who Cain’s wife was. The only possible answer was that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. The Bible does not say how old Cain was when he killed Abel (Genesis 4:8). Since they were both farmers, they were likely both full-grown adults, possibly with families of their own. Adam and Eve had surely had more children than just Cain and Abel at the time Abel was killed - they definitely had many more children later (Genesis 5:4). The fact that Cain was scared for his own life after he killed Abel (Genesis 4:14) indicates that there were likely many other children and perhaps even grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Adam and Eve at that time. Cain's wife (Genesis 4:17) was a daughter or granddaughter of Adam and Eve.

Since Adam and Eve were the first (and only) human beings, their children would have no other choice than to intermarry. God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there was enough people that intermarriage was not necessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). The reason that incest often results in genetic abnormalities in children is that when two people of similar genetics (i.e. a brother and sister) have children – genetic defects are far more likely to result because both parents had the same defects themselves. When people from different families have children – it is highly unlikely that both parents will have the same genetic defects. The human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries as genetic defects are multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, so that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. As a result, it was safe for them to intermarry. It may seem strange or even disgusting to think of Cain's wife being his sister. In the beginning, since God started with one man and one woman, the second generation would have no choice but to intermarry amongst themselves.

Hopefully that cleared somethings up...

 

[snex]

isnt it lovely how inerrantists are more than willing to read into the text when it suits them? if the bible is god's inerrant word, it does not need your interpretation. yet, without your interpretation, its a bunch of nonsense! whatever are we to do?

also, isnt morality absolute? if incest is a sin, then it must always have been a sin. god and his morals are unchanging.

 

[Crimson King]

OH so we all come from a 900 year old's son's incestous relationship.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[jinster72]

There is no way I can prove to anyone that God exists

There is no way I can prove to anyone that God does not exist

Perhaps the most important question of our lives, and finding a definitive answer derived from fact is impossible (please, don't try to convince me either way)

I'm a Christian. Perhaps that discredits whatever I will say in your eyes...please read on for I will not try to convince you of anything with my "superior intellect" or whatever.

My roommate is not a Christian...we have had many conversations regarding the existence of God, absolute truth vs. relative truth, etc. You get the picture. He continually comes to the conclusion that if God existed He would reveal Himself to us. Reasonable conclusion from his point of view, except that he probably cannot accurately predict how the creator of the universe would deal with said universe.

Anyways, all that to say that a recurring theme of the bible is that God desires faith. Faith in itself requires there to be some element of trust involved...if I were able to methodically prove God's existence to you, it would require no faith on your part (or mine) to believe in Him. Plain and simple, from a biblical perspective, no one should expect to see proof of God's existence that would cause us to come to the conclusion that His existence is undeniable.

Suspiciously convenient? Perhaps...but that is certainly not a disqualifier

 

[snex]

There is no way I can prove to anyone that God exists

There is no way I can prove to anyone that God does not exist

Perhaps the most important question of our lives, and finding a definitive answer derived from fact is impossible (please, don't try to convince me either way)

I'm a Christian. Perhaps that discredits whatever I will say in your eyes...please read on for I will not try to convince you of anything with my "superior intellect" or whatever.

My roommate is not a Christian...we have had many conversations regarding the existence of God, absolute truth vs. relative truth, etc. You get the picture. He continually comes to the conclusion that if God existed He would reveal Himself to us. Reasonable conclusion from his point of view, except that he probably cannot accurately predict how the creator of the universe would deal with said universe.

Anyways, all that to say that a recurring theme of the bible is that God desires faith. Faith in itself requires there to be some element of trust involved...if I were able to methodically prove God's existence to you, it would require no faith on your part (or mine) to believe in Him. Plain and simple, from a biblical perspective, no one should expect to see proof of God's existence that would cause us to come to the conclusion that His existence is undeniable.

Suspiciously convenient? Perhaps...but that is certainly not a disqualifier

it is not a disqualifier in and of itself, except for two reasons.

1) the men in the bible did not require faith. god revealed himself to them. why are they special?

2) you disqialify other religions on the exact same grounds. if faith is our only guide, then there is absolutely no justification for choosing christianity over any other religion.

this is why i am hounding enigmaticcam for some other-than-science method of gaining knowledge about the external world. if one cannot be shown to exist, then the idea of god is superfluous.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

if you do not stop using this pathetic ad hominem, i will make sure the mods give you ample warning over it. i suggest you apologize immediately and never say this again. you are both insulting people and lying.

You know what? You're absolutely right. It is an ad hominem. But ad hominem or not, it still doesn't change the fact that it's true. You don't see ahteists refuting the entire bible, only the parts they don't like.

But honestly, I can refute everything you said, and you can reply back and refute everything I refuted, and we can keep going back and forth. In addition, since Crimson King is making it difficult for people to come into this board with password protection (which I totally agree with), and since I really have no interest to put forth that effort just to continue this discussion, I'm going to just leave everything as is. But first, I'd like to say one last thing:

When you lose someone you dearly love in the future, whether a spouse, parent, sibling, or friend, I would really doubt that you wouldn't at least wish there were a God, even if just for a few minutes, because as an atheist and evolutionist, you know you are never going to see that person again. And then it'd be interesting to try to rationalize as to why evolution would have even given you the ability to feel that kind of pain and loss in the first place, as it has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I know this is an emotional argument, so don't take it as an argument, but it's just something to think about. This is where I think God is the most real.

I don't want to leave on a bad note though, so please at least understand why I believe in God. It's definitely not something that would hold in a logical debate, but whether or not God exists, at least I'll live a happy life with some amount of hope. Peace?

 

[snex]

You know what? You're absolutely right. It is an ad hominem. But ad hominem or not, it still doesn't change the fact that it's true. You don't see ahteists refuting the entire bible, only the parts they don't like.

it isnt true and you have no evidence for it. it is the last ditch effort of somebody whose belief system is in tatters, to claim that the opposition cannot be trusted to do honest research because their worldview is not based on the same assumptions as yours. a muslim could apply the exact same reasoning in rejecting christianity. and atheists dont refute the entire bible because a lot of it contains verified information about ordinary events. atheists dont dispute the fact that babylon conquered israel because 1) we have outside sources that confirm it, and 2) its not a stretch of the imagination to believe that some ancient nation conquered another.

When you lose someone you dearly love in the future, whether a spouse, parent, sibling, or friend, I would really doubt that you wouldn't at least wish there were a God, even if just for a few minutes, because as an atheist and evolutionist, you know you are never going to see that person again. And then it'd be interesting to try to rationalize as to why evolution would have even given you the ability to feel that kind of pain and loss in the first place, as it has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I know this is an emotional argument, so don't take it as an argument, but it's just something to think about. This is where I think God is the most real.

I don't want to leave on a bad note though, so please at least understand why I believe in God. It's definitely not something that would hold in a logical debate, but whether or not God exists, at least I'll live a happy life with some amount of hope. Peace?

ah, the long-awaited alternative method to gaining knowledge about the external world. how i feel at the death of a loved one. yet, any religion can claim that these feelings back up their own personal religion instead of yours. how am i supposed to know who is right? i feel loss, yet i cant discriminate between your god and the infinitude of others that people claim exist. i cant even discriminate between a god and no god at all. feelings do not require god, and if you bothered to learn what evolution states, youd understand it. all your criticisms are worthless when you dont understand the very thing you criticize. it isnt hard at all to understand why a highly intelligent species should feel loss at the death of one of their companions. even chimpanzees display this feature. do they get it from god too?

unlike theists, atheists are able to place true value on their earthly lives. they know it is the only one we have. there is no afterlife where we get to make up for our past wrongs and reconcile them with those that left before us. you get one shot and thats all, so you have to make the best of it while it lasts. in fact, studies show that atheists are less stressed, less likely to commit crimes, less likely to get divorced, more likely to be financially successful, and in general more happy than theists. why should this be so if god favors those that follow him? maybe we should all forget about making life here happy, and just hope that our faith in jesus will be rewarded with something we have absolutely zero evidence for. right, and you should kiss hanks *** too, because if you do, he will give you a million dollars.

(please replace the *s in the link with the appropriate word.)

edit: amazingly enough, there is a show on pbs right now about animal emotions. wolves, dogs, apes, monkeys, elephants, and a whole lot of other social mammals mourn their dead.