The Bible

[cybercoma]

Because the universe is the totality of space, time and matter. To go beyond what is available isn't possible.

If there are many universes, then what is it that's between them?

[Sleipnir]

If there are many universes, then what is it that's between them?

Not a clue, I'm a biology person not an astronomer.

[GostHacked]

Not a clue, I'm a biology person not an astronomer.

How the hell did I manage to read that in the voice of McCoy?!??!

[Sleipnir]

How the hell did I manage to read that in the voice of McCoy?!??!

Not a clue lol

[Merlin]

I would guess that most of the posters here making fun of the Bible have never read the book or even half of it. Heck I'd settle for a quarter of it. They just see an easy target and pile on, like a bully in t he schoolyard.

[betsy]

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.

So if you say atheism is the lack of belief in gods, by stating this:

Mighty AC, on 22 November 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, science, politics, sex, drugs or rock & roll. It is simply a lack of belief.

You think evolution - should it ever be proven a fact - has nothing to do with Atheism?

You don't see it as an affirmation of your belief that there is no God?

[betsy]

She has been told this many, many times in the past: origin of life and evolution are two different things.

True, those are two different things. But the funny thing is that atheist-evolutionist want to keep those two separate - as putting a clear divider between the two.

Either because they know that connecting the two will eventually lead to the inevitable that they cannot give an answer to......

.....OR, they don't see and understand the concept that the two - even though they are two different things - are inevitably linked together! This smacks of ignorance on the concept of evolution!

[betsy]

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.

You say evolution is the diversification of life. That means there is already life to diversify. Well, where did that initial life begin?

You say the Earth is made by coalescing stardust. Well, where did the star dust come from? How did it come to exist?

You say the universe was caused by the Big Bang. Well, what caused the Big Bang?

You say life on earth was made through the "plausibility" of abiogenesis.

The overwhelming evidence that life cannot come from non-life is a powerful indication that naturalism is not a realistic worldview. Life either had a natural origin (abiogenesis) or a supernatural origin (intelligent design). The scientific impossibility of abiogenesis is an argument for, at least, a supernatural originator. The only way to create even the most basic building blocks of life is in non-natural, highly designed, and tightly controlled conditions. That, by itself, makes it reasonable to presume that life cannot begin without intelligent intervention.

http://www.gotquesti...ion-theory.html

What plausibility are you talking about? There is no plausibility if there is no possibility!

So, that means, another one of those "magical" moments?

Edited November 27, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

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?

Yes you are asking everyone to believe the Bible. From your OP:

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.

Watch this summarisation of the atheist evolutionist's theory. Post #1754

http://www.mapleleaf...c=18914&st=1740

Read the following again.

][/b]

Mathematical Probability that Jesus is the Christ

The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt - for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.

Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).

http://www.biblebeli...au/radio034.htm

FACT: THE SCRIPTURES AND SCIENCE ARE COMING INTO AGREEMENT.

http://sciencespeaks...t/index.html#c0

Personal opinion don't count. Never mind what you and I believe. FOCUS. I said it is not asking you to believe the Bible...because We're talking about the mathematical probabilities - comparison between the two. That's the issue. Just answer the question given to you.

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)!

Edited November 27, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

You think evolution - should it ever be proven a fact

Evolution has been proven time and time again.

[Sleipnir]

You say evolution is the diversification of life. That means there is already life to diversify. Well, where did that initial life begin?

Read my quote.

[Sleipnir]

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)!

Religion and evolution cannot be debated in the same plane of thought. Try again betsy.

[betsy]

Religion and evolution cannot be debated in the same plane of thought. Try again betsy.

DUH?????

I guess we're not on the same page.

As for reading to your quote....why should I bother when you can't even manage to keep up?

[eyeball]

If there are many universes, then what is it that's between them?

The betweeniverse obviously.

[Mighty AC]

You think evolution - should it ever be proven a fact - has nothing to do with Atheism?

You don't see it as an affirmation of your belief that there is no God?

Betsy, are you really Rob Ford, because you are being 'willfully ignorant'. I lack a belief in gods. Evolution is an observable, proven fact. Watch the video, learn the difference between evolution, mechanism of change and the applications of it. Knowledge is power and your cult leaders are not being straight with you. Anyway, the two concepts are separate.

You say evolution is the diversification of life. That means there is already life to diversify. Well, where did that initial life begin?

You say the Earth is made by coalescing stardust. Well, where did the star dust come from? How did it come to exist?

You say the universe was caused by the Big Bang. Well, what caused the Big Bang?

You say life on earth was made through the "plausibility" of abiogenesis.

[/Quote]

Sigh. I put them in order to make it easy for you to follow too. Here they are again: Big Bang - Coalescing star dust - Abiogenesis - Evolution. You follow now?

I don't know what happened before the big bang, neither do you. We will likely never know. I am honest about it; but, you believe in a magic, timeless being without evidence and then fail to ask how it was created.

On abiogenesis you wrote:

What plausibility are you talking about? There is no plausibility if there is no possibility!

You may want to read some more credible sources. It appears that your people are lying to you. Researchers have demonstrated the formation of nucleic acids from simple compounds that were readily available on an early earth. http://arstechnica.c...a-nucleic-acid/

If you believe that science is a gift from your god, why do you continuously quote articles that willfully lie and misrepresent scientific findings?

[eyeball]

I would guess that most of the posters here making fun of the Bible have never read the book or even half of it. Heck I'd settle for a quarter of it. They just see an easy target and pile on, like a bully in t he schoolyard.

I was often targeted like that by the Catholic school kids on the way home. They made me feel sad and now I'm afraid of religion.

[cybercoma]

True, those are two different things. But the funny thing is that atheist-evolutionist want to keep those two separate - as putting a clear divider between the two.

Either because they know that connecting the two will eventually lead to the inevitable that they cannot give an answer to......

.....OR, they don't see and understand the concept that the two - even though they are two different things - are inevitably linked together! This smacks of ignorance on the concept of evolution!

How can you still be so clueless? So much time and resources have been dumped into explaining to you the theories, what they do and do not explain, the definition of atheism, what it does and does not mean, yet you still continue to misrepresent these things.

Nobody gives a fig about your wild guesses about these things when there are mountains of scientific data, well-researched, documented, and supported by facts and evidence giving us answers to these questions. There is absolutely no need to invoke mysticism to explain these observable phenomena.

So stop creating strawmen, misrepresenting arguments, and continuing to play the fool. If you were as incapable of learning and understanding things as you time and again demonstrate in these threads, I would question how you make it through the day without getting yourself killed by walking into oncoming traffic because you just don't believe in traffic signals.

I refuse to humour your blatant trolling any longer. Either watch the videos on evolution and atheism that have been posted, which give fantastic and clear explanations of the concepts, or continue to live in your ignorant bubble, where you're incapable of having any kind of rational discussion with people that live in the real world. I'm no longer going to try getting through that concrete block you have for a head.

Edited November 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[betsy]

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.

"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." - David Hume, Philosopher

[GostHacked]

"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." - David Hume, Philosopher

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

[Sleipnir]

As for reading to your quote....why should I bother when you can't even manage to keep up?

Bother with what? ignoring counter-claims against your claims?

[GostHacked]

When the student is willing to learn, the teacher will appear - Chinese proverb.

[The_Squid]

You think evolution - should it ever be proven a fact - has nothing to do with Atheism?

It is a fact.... no, it has nothing to do with atheism.

You don't see it as an affirmation of your belief that there is no God?

No.

But the funny thing is that atheist-evolutionist want to keep those two separate - as putting a clear divider between the two.

Either because they know that connecting the two will eventually lead to the inevitable that they cannot give an answer to......

ummm... scientists don't know how life began.... there is much research, but, as far as I know, there are no clear answers. In science, it is perfectly reasonable to say "we don't know". It doesn't mean Zeus shot lightening bolts into a cesspool to create the first single-celled animals... It means that it hasn't been discovered yet.

Without the origin of life, there is no evolution. DUH... anyone with a grade 3 education can see the link.... but so what? One does not rely on the other to happen. They are two different concepts.

You say evolution is the diversification of life. That means there is already life to diversify. Well, where did that initial life begin?

THAT is a REALLY good question.... that no one knows the answer to.... and may NEVER know the answer to.... but it is a massive leap of logic to say that "Zeus did it".

You say the Earth is made by coalescing stardust. Well, where did the star dust come from? How did it come to exist?

There was a really big BANG! No one knows what caused that though... there are theories... do some googling! But the fact that no one knows doesn't mean a god rode by in his golden chariot pulled by unicorns and decided to crack his whip... and BANG! The universe.

[GostHacked]

When the wind of change blows some build walls while others build windmills. .. Another Chinese proverb.

[The_Squid]

"Faith and dishonesty are other words for uselessness."

(Chinese Proverb)

[GostHacked]

"Faith and dishonesty are other words for uselessness."

(Chinese Proverb)

Ohh I like that one.