Moonlight Graham Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Betsy, honest questions for you: What exactly do you believe religiously from the Bible? ie: -Do you believe the book of Genesis is literally true? Or do you only believe in some of it? -Do you believe that God created humans like in the Adam and Eve story and humans didn't evolve from African primates? -Do you believe that the story of Noah's Ark is mostly or fully literally true? - Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God, Mary had a virgin pregnancy, and Jesus died and his body was resurrected to heaven and physically disappeared from his cave tomb by God? - Do you believe Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and cured the sick? Edited November 25, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
betsy Posted November 25, 2012 Author Report Posted November 25, 2012 Iron sulfide = Iron + sulphur = iron (II) sulfide. ocean platelets = from the Earth geology. Hydrocarbon compounds = from chemical interactions. <singsong> you got no answer....you got no answer...... Quote
betsy Posted November 25, 2012 Author Report Posted November 25, 2012 Betsy, honest questions for you: What exactly do you believe religiously from the Bible? ie: -Do you believe the book of Genesis is literally true? Or do you only believe in some of it? -Do you believe that God created humans like in the Adam and Eve story and humans didn't evolve from African primates? -Do you believe that the story of Noah's Ark is mostly or fully literally true? - Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God, Mary had a virgin pregnancy, and Jesus died and his body was resurrected to heaven and physically disappeared from his cave tomb by God? - Do you believe Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, and cured the sick? What I exactly believe is irrelevant. Here is the issue. Deal with this: So I question your rationality. Your "good" judgement. Your common sense. If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin, as possible- without any single proof to support it - they don't make sense when they throw out the Bible despite the astronomical mathematical probability of its listed facts - not to mention the 300 or so Jesus Prophecies that have all come true! Can you imagine that just with the Jesus Prophecies alone - it's multiplying the astronomical mathematical probability x 300 (minimum)! I'm not even asking you to believe the Bible. All I'm saying is why would you readily dismiss the Bible, when you easily swallow the evolutionist's assumption of origin? Quote
BubberMiley Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 I'm not even asking you to believe the Bible. All I'm saying is why would you readily dismiss the Bible, when you easily swallow the evolutionist's assumption of origin? Do you swallow the idea that antibiotics work when you swallow antibiotics? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted November 25, 2012 Author Report Posted November 25, 2012 Well first, I've never claimed on this forum that I'm an atheist. I've also never read anything by Dawkins, but I've seen a few video clips of him. Science is often based on theories. Theories are the most convincing likelihood of true knowledge based on real evidence. An atheist basing their beliefs scientifically, as would any being basing their beliefs on the existing evidence, would be most logical to believe that humans very likely evolved from primates in Africa, and that the universe likely began with the "big bang". These are not 100% truths as any scientist would admit, these are based on the theories of evolution and the big-bang theory, neither 100% proveable but by far the most likely scenarios that humanity has discovered thus far. The Bible creation theories in the book of Genesis have very little real scientific evidence to back them up. Nobody can claim they are 100% false, just as nobody can claim that polka-dot spaghetti monsters existing is 100% false. It's just that very inadequate amounts of evidence exist to claim they are are true. The best evidence existing to say that Genesis stories are actually true is that they were written in a very old book. That's about as convincing as believing events in Homer's "The Odyssey" and other Greek myths being true. Billions of people in the world believing them isn't evidence that they're true. Evidence doesn't exist either way to say WHAT exactly caused the big bang (or maybe more accurately, how the matter involved in the big bang initially came to exist). Was it a powerul being(s) we can't see? Was it some other energy force we don't know about? Was it a purple alien with 14 eyes? Proper evidence doesn't exist, so my belief is the same as science in that I don't know how the universe came into being. Betsy, you are right to challenge anyone who claims to 100% know that God doesn't exist, but then again there isn't adequate observable evidence to show he does exist either. So believing in God is indeed faith. Whether you're an atheist or not doesn't matter. Based on rational thinking, I'd like to know your feedback. Quote
betsy Posted November 25, 2012 Author Report Posted November 25, 2012 Do you swallow the idea that antibiotics work when you swallow antibiotics? Don't they??? Is there not a single proof that they work??? Quote
Mighty AC Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 Simply lack of belief? You don't believe in anything at all??? You can say you don't believe in faith..... or God.... or fairies.... or the big bang.... or Oprah's diet......or cholesterol is bad for you....but.........you can't say you simply lack belief! Talk about desperate damage-control maneuver....you even go so far to suggest that all atheists are....psychologically impaired? I say you're trying to distance yourself from the true meaning of atheism! Twisting it so.....because you know you're bonked. Seriously? Lack of belief in deities. The "a" prefix makes it the opposite of theism. It works with other words as well, like biotic vs abiotic. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Sleipnir Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 <singsong> you got no answer....you got no answer...... Well you quoted me, read it. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
BubberMiley Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 Don't they??? Is there not a single proof that they work??? There is. They have worked amazingly well. But recently they haven't worked so well in certain cases. Can you guess why? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Sleipnir Posted November 25, 2012 Report Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin, as possible- without any single proof to support it - they don't make sense when they throw out the Bible despite the astronomical mathematical probability of its listed facts - not to mention the 300 or so Jesus Prophecies that have all come true! Try making sentences. Can you imagine that just with the Jesus Prophecies alone - it's multiplying the astronomical mathematical probability x 300 (minimum)! Which by the way, has nothing to do with science. All I'm saying is why would you readily dismiss the Bible, when you easily swallow the evolutionist's assumption of origin? Because the bible doesn't explain or account for anything. Edited November 25, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
eyeball Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 How many times have I said evolutionist-atheists are no longer being scientific? At least as many as you've been told that proof lies with the positive claimant. That would still be as much your responsibility now as it was on 14 May 2011 at 05:08 AM. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 No you don't, big bang and evolution are entirely two separate different concepts and issues. She has been told this many, many times in the past: origin of life and evolution are two different things. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) What I exactly believe is irrelevant. Here is the issue. Deal with this: So I question your rationality. Your "good" judgement. Your common sense. If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin, as possible- without any single proof to support it - they don't make sense when they throw out the Bible despite the astronomical mathematical probability of its listed facts - not to mention the 300 or so Jesus Prophecies that have all come true! What do you mean "without any single proof to support" evolutionary origin. There's fossil and archeological (tools/weapons found near fossils) to show human evolution. Any theory on the very origin of life itself is an objective best guess based on evolutionary science. Nobody really knows how life started, but they know based on carbon dating & geology and other evidence etc. that humans and other species arrived long after other species, such as dinosaurs. Jesus fulfilling prophecies: well, what's stopping the authors of the gospels from taking the prophecies in the Old Testament and building their stories of Jesus so that they fit into those prophecies? I'm not even asking you to believe the Bible. All I'm saying is why would you readily dismiss the Bible, when you easily swallow the evolutionist's assumption of origin? Yes you are asking everyone to believe the Bible. From your OP: This thread is created with the purpose of showing skeptics that the Bible is indeed The Word of God Also, what "assumption of origin" are we talking about? Origin of the universe? Of life? Of human life? They aren't assumptions, they're theories. They're all based on evidence testing with various degrees of probability of being true as admitted by science itself. The Bible has been shown by science & history to be accurate in some regards and greatly contradicted by evidence in others. As a whole, the Bible is a mish-mash of fables, real history supported by evidence, made-up history contradicted by evidence, and supernatural stories that would take quick a leap in faith and logic to believe. A lot the things you claim in this thread as showing biblical correlation with science we wouldn't know for centuries/millennia are vague or weak at best, or can simply be written off as coincidence. What's the point of this thread? It's that you're trying to show & prove that the Bible has things written in it that are scientifically true but were unknowable at the time of writing and therefore the Bible has some kind of divine origin and is, in your words, "THE WORD OF GOD". BTW, since you claim the Bible is the "word of God" as you do in the OP of this thread, then your beliefs on the Bible are relevant. Edited November 26, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
The_Squid Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Any theory on the very origin of life itself is an objective best guess based on evolutionary science. No! The origin of life and evolution are two different scientific theories! How life originated has nothing to do with evolution. Once life came into being, then that life evolved. The origin of life does not depend upon evolution. Quote
GostHacked Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 This gal has a bright future. http://youtu.be/6cH-z3ILCX0 Quote
Mighty AC Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 So how do you think it all started? The universe? Earth? You tell me...I can't guess what you believe. Diversification of life: Evolution Origin of life on earth: Abiogenesis is plausible The Earth: Coalescing star dust This Universe: The Big Bang Prior to this Universe: I don't know, we may never know. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Mighty AC Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Question for believers: Believers often say that something had to kick start the big bang; hence, it must have been god. So what created your god? How is claiming the timeless existence of a magic being a better answer than 'I don't know'? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
GostHacked Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Question for believers: Believers often say that something had to kick start the big bang; hence, it must have been god. So what created your god? How is claiming the timeless existence of a magic being a better answer than 'I don't know'? If there was nothing before the so called big bang, then where would a god be if there was nowhere for him to reside? Or is god outside of this whole thing which allows the claim of omnipresence. Getting into some real conundrums here, as well as some conflicts. God created the universe and man, but who created god? Whenever I pose that question I don't ever get a solid answer other than, god has always been there. Well, where exactly? If god exists outside of our universe, then there is another realms in which he resides. But then that begs another question about the creation of that realm. It's like the chicken and the egg, which came first, god or the universe construct in which he can exist in. IN this vasteness we call the universe, we are the only ones around? The whole universe was created just for us? And what happens to those notions if/when we encounter other intelligent life out there that is not made in god's image? But if god made those other beings in his image, then what exactly is his image? Quote
Sleipnir Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) It's like the chicken and the egg, which came first, god or the universe construct in which he can exist in. Egg and (considering for the sake of the argument that god exist) universe. Universe: totality of all space, time and matter. God would not be able to exist in which nothing exist, otherwise something would exist if god existed during the non-existence period. Therefore, by logic, god existed after the big bang which means something created god(s). Edited November 26, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
Moonlight Graham Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 God created the universe and man, but who created god? Whenever I pose that question I don't ever get a solid answer other than, god has always been there. Ya that's what makes me scratch my head. If God is, say, some kind of powerful force of energy, or a powerful being, or whatever he/it is, how did God come to exist? If believers in God's creation of the universe argue that the universe had to be created, then didn't God have to be created too? Why does the universe have to be created, yet doesn't since "he always existed" as they say. Maybe the energy & matter of our universe has always existed, but before the big bang there was a "big crunch" where a previously existing universe shrank into the small ball of matter that was existed the moment prior to the big bang, and our universe has simply existed always cycling through an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches. Who knows. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Egg and (considering for the sake of the argument that god exist) universe. Universe: totality of all space, time and matter. God would not be able to exist in which nothing exist, otherwise something would exist if god existed during the non-existence period. Therefore, by logic, god existed after the big bang which means something created god(s). Why can't there be something beyond our universe? What if our universe exists side-by-side trillions of other universes, just like a single cell in the human body exists side-by-side trillions of other cells. Just because humans can't observe beyond our universe doesn't mean nothing exists beyond it. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Mighty AC Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Well you can observe all you want right now, Mighty AC....but that is not proof of macro-evolution. It still all ends up in the same bottom line: ASSUMPTION. Here's what Berkely U has to say. A plausible model: We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out thatspeciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we’ll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.[/Quote]http://evolution.ber...peciation.shtml In general speciation events are hard to observe; that is why I used an example in which the intermediate populations still exist. Researchers were able to perform tests on the intermediate sub species to confirm their original hypothesis. At first scientists hypothesized that the salamander populations, separated by a physical barrier, evolved into separate species. Morphological and protein tests confirmed this hypothesis. The advent of DNA sequencing then allowed them to prove it genetically. There is no assumption involved here. We have seen a new species formed and performed DNA tests to prove it. Edited November 26, 2012 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
GostHacked Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Why can't there be something beyond our universe? What if our universe exists side-by-side trillions of other universes, just like a single cell in the human body exists side-by-side trillions of other cells. Just because humans can't observe beyond our universe doesn't mean nothing exists beyond it. Fancy some wave collapse theory? Quote
Sleipnir Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Why can't there be something beyond our universe? Because the universe is the totality of space, time and matter. To go beyond what is available isn't possible. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
GostHacked Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Because the universe is the totality of space, time and matter. To go beyond what is available isn't possible. That sounds like a belief !!! How can you be sure that of what is possible and what is not possible?? Edited November 27, 2012 by GostHacked Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.