GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR

[betsy]

Are you equating heavens with universe?

1. often heavens The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens

My imaginary evidences are better than scientists rational hypothesis.

It's like arguing with a brick wall.

If you'll take the time to read the evidences given, you'll notice they're more than just hypotheses.

They're all scientific facts!

And yes, it does very much feels like I'm talking to brick walls! Unusually, uniformly, very thick brick walls.

I say uniformly, because - they're all cookie-cutter responses!

All so-called rebuttals and criticisms so far, are formed from ignorance!

Either nobody read the evidences, or nobody really understand the Bible (not even the basics), or both!

Gee....these brick walls are mass-produced by the same producer - that's how it feels like arguing with them!

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Yes, I have an issue with them preaching in public -

I suppose you have an issue with advertisements?

Commercials on tv, or your computer - right inside your own home?

How do you deal with those?

You know, it makes me wonder about people who really gets riled up by preachers or proselytyzers - I can't help but assume, there must be something else going on in there. Something deeper.

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

The Urantia Book (Okay, 1930s isn't ancient, but still...).

http://www.urantiabook.org/index_science.htm

Sorry. Only ancient Books like the Bible, for obvious reasons.

[betsy]

The Vedas.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion/colony-earth-science-vedas-part-1-00568

http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas

Be specific. What particular statements, or declarations?

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

When Bill Nye debated Ken Ham they were asked, what would change your mind? Their summarized responses were:

Bill Nye: Evidence

Ken Ham: Nothing

That's what is going on here in very slow motion. We have members who are providing evidence and rationale arguments versus one who will reject any message that clashes with her preset beliefs. Logic, reason and reality are not important to people like this. Their conclusion is set in stone and nothing will change it.

I can see trying to save a good friend or family member from embarrassing ignorance, but why waste your time on an internet forum?

Which members do you refer to that's provided evidences and "rational" arguments?

Cite the link for those responses - I must've missed them.

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I think most of us are tolerant of people practicing their own religion. The issue is when they begin to preach it publicly, want 'creation' to be taught in schools as if it were a science or push creation in public pretending they have 'evidences'. I support freedom of religion, but when you bring religion into a public forum it will be debated.

If macro evolution is being taught in public, most definitely the Biblical Creation should be taught as a comparison!

The Biblical account of Creation has so far offer more evidences to support its validity than macro evolution, which are all based on SUPPOSITIONS and EXTRAPOLATION from micro to macro!

So far, not even the evolution guru himself, Richard Dawkins, had come forward to defend and explain macro evolution to

James Tour!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25773-no-scientist-alive-today-understands-macroevolution/

Do you realize what James Tour is actually doing? He's challenging the whole science community to explain macro evolution!

He's thrown a pie in the face of evolutionists!

Don't think for a minute that he's dumb for saying he doesn't understand it! He knows what he's saying!

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Agreed. My comment isn't addressed at most benign followers of non-evidential beliefs. However, this thread is debating creationism, a more extreme religious position, and is led by a member who denies evolution; there is a distinct difference. For example, if a friend or family member believed in feng shui, fate or karma, I would secretly roll my eyes, but say nothing; however, if they were anti-vaxxers I would do my best to intervene and convince them to reevaluate their position and act according to the evidence. Both cases involve false beliefs, but one is benign.

Of course you're welcome to give your rebuttals. But you've also got to be sensible about it. Saying, "Nay," without anything to substantiate your position, isn't a rebuttal. What more when your opposition has something credible to support her stance.

As for the difference between what you say is, "benign" and the "anti-whatever,"......that would depend on the arguments being presented by the "anti-whatever," wouldn't it?

You can't just dismiss an argument as an "eye-roller" - especially when it is being backed by REASON, can you?

If you do.......you'd be the one who'll be proven to be irrational.

Surely you're not suggesting you're merely giving the usual knee-jerk response to whatever it is that don't sit well

with you? Or, whatever it is that makes you uncomfortable?

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

In the face of the evidences given in this thread, along with other supporting arguments from two very different

but related threads......

One comes from the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25665-national-academy-of-sciences-says-about-creation-of-the-universe-by-go/

and the other one is the claim by James Tour,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25773-no-scientist-alive-today-understands-macroevolution/

.......the burden of proof, now lies squarely on atheists.

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Similarly, I feel that the more fundamentalist type believers, like Creationists, who are willing to deny scientific evidence, use their religion to discriminate against classes of people like homosexuals and women, and politically attempt to insert their beliefs into the public sphere cross the line from being simply ignorant or farcical to being harmful to society, themselves and their children.

Whoa, that's a mouthful of claims there, Slick.

Why do you say Christian belief (to be specific), is ignorance? You go against evidences (and yet you've got nothing to support your atheistic belief). You can't even rely on sciences to bat for you - science as I've shown it - seems to be tilted favorably more on my side. And you say Christianity is based on ignorance?

Why do you say Christian belief is harmful to Christians, their children, and to society?

If the world would embrace and practice Christianity, you'd have the perfect, peaceful society! Utopia!

What's harmful about that?

If everyone faithfully practice monogamy and refrain from pre-marital sex........will we have the widespread STDs?

Now that we have Same-sex marriage legalized, do you see any indication of anything but more complication when it comes to the mores of society?

Our laws have become so malleable - which can only be detrimental to any society.

What good are laws that can be changed at the drop of a hat? If laws can be changed, there'll always be someone who'll be oppressed and discriminated against. Just look at our unborn children, as an example.

And "special status" are bestowed on particular groups!

Do you see any peace ever coming out of that?

Christianity does not discriminate on women. People like you see anything that doesn't exactly conform to anything you promote, as discrimination. Anyone who doesn't march to your dictates, are bigots.

We have gender roles - whether you want to accept that or not.

if you are a naturalist, you should understand that!

You should blame nature for being discriminatory against women - giving females the role of birthing and nurturing offsprings. Of being physiologically different from males!

If nature had been fair, there wouldn't be this so-called "penis envy" - "battle of the sexes."

And there wouldn't be this constant whining from you guys!

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Be specific. What particular statements, or declarations?

The ones cited in the article.

[BubberMiley]

Sorry. Only ancient Books like the Bible, for obvious reasons.

No, not obvious. If a book can predict scientific discoveries 50 years in advance, I'd say that's "God-breathed" by your standards.

And all these future scientific discoveries in the Qu'uran will surely have you accepting Allah as the one true God and Moe Hammond is His Prophet.

[betsy]

No, not obvious. If a book can predict scientific discoveries 50 years in advance, I'd say that's "God-breathed" by your standards.

And all these future scientific discoveries in the Qu'uran will surely have you accepting Allah as the one true God and Moe Hammond is His Prophet.

You're being silly, Bubber.

50 years in advance is definitely not the same. Not by a long shot.

They already have an inkling what's being scientifically studied, hypothesized, and experimented.....therefore, making assumptions that are likely to become true is not uncommon. As an example, inspired by the invention of the first airplane .....how many people mused that someday, we might even fly to the moon, and beyond?

Well, the Qu'ran's is supposed to be the Abrahamic God.....that's why they identify as an Abrahamic religion!

The Abrahamic religions refer to three sister monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that claim the prophet Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as their common forefather. These religions account for more than half of the world's total population today.^[1]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Abrahamic_religions

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Well, the Qu'ran's is supposed to be the Abrahamic God.....that's why they identify as an Abrahamic religion!

So the Qu'uran is "God-breathed" too?

[GostHacked]

If macro evolution is being taught in public, most definitely the Biblical Creation should be taught as a comparison!

There is no comparison to be made. That is why creationism is not taken seriously by serious scientists.

[betsy]

There is no comparison to be made. That is why creationism is not taken seriously by serious scientists.

That's your opinion. It's not worth anything if you can't refute James Tour, and provide a single evidence for macro evolution!

Macro evolution is not a fact! It's nothing more than supposition, backed by extrapolation - not evidence!

That's the fact.

If we're going to teach that unscientific supposition in school, there's no reason why Biblical creation shouldn't be given for comparison.

There are more evidence that points favorably to the Biblical Genesis than what they want us to believe about macro evolution.

Talk about brainwashing students.....geeee...

Edited June 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

So the Qu'uran is "God-breathed" too?

You don't know how Muslims and Jews went on separate paths?

Sorry.....you'll just have to look that up on your own.

Edited June 26, 2016 by betsy

[GostHacked]

That's your opinion. It's not worth anything if you can't refute James Tour, and provide a single evidence for macro evolution!

Macro evolution is not a fact! It's nothing more than supposition, backed by extrapolation - not evidence!

That's the fact.

If we're going to teach that unscientific supposition in school, there's no reason why Biblical creation shouldn't be given for comparison.

There are more evidence that points favorably to the Biblical Genesis than what they want us to believe about macro evolution.

Talk about brainwashing students.....geeee...

Creationism is not fact and it 100% unscientific. This has gone beyond ridiculous.

No, not obvious. If a book can predict scientific discoveries 50 years in advance, I'd say that's "God-breathed" by your standards.

And all these future scientific discoveries in the Qu'uran will surely have you accepting Allah as the one true God and Moe Hammond is His Prophet.

Look at a lot of sci-fi in the 80s. We are living in those times now.

[BubberMiley]

You don't know how Muslims and Jews went on separate paths?

Sorry.....you'll just have to look that up on your own.

I know. I'm saying that if he Qu'uran provides incredible scientific foresight because it also tells of the one true Abraham God, then is it not also "God-breathed"?

[Scott Mayers]

You were the one who posted a challenge to the claims in this thread, right?

And you're the one who admitted that you have not even read the arguments. What kind of a challenge do you hope to bring to my claims, if you have not read my arguments? That's just common sense, right?

So I cut to the chase, and pointed out the obvious!

Heck! You didn't even know the accurate description for the universe isn't "expanding." It's "STREEEEEEEEETCHING."

That's the exact term used in the Scriptures to describe the universe/space - 11 times by different authors from

different time-lines! In the right context!

Here, so you will be aware: "Expanding," was not the accurate term.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

Have a good day.

You couldn't remotely compete with me on your delusions here, Betsy. I came in late to this discussion and admitted this up front. So if you are attempting to take on me, you'd have to accept this. If you want a sincere challenge, I can do that.

AND, when I came in, I noticed that you had opted out from the last comments then and so offered to discuss this with another instead. But, if you're sincere, beginning with:

This thread will provide numerous evidence, leaving no doubt that the God of Abraham is the Designer, the Creator.

Of course, we rely upon the Bible (which was given to mankind that we may have some knowledge of Him, and all that He wants us to know and understand).

Being God-inspired, the Bible is practically Authored by God, therefore, this thread also serves as the evidence for the Bible. The Bible will be heavily cited.

What is the Bible?

(1) If a modern movie asserts the truth of its content, does this assure that it IS 'true'? What makes you think that you can have a source PROVE its own validity?

I'm a logician in practice and not even any logic system can self-prove itself as valid. [Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem]

So, how can the Bible "prove" itself?

(2) Since you dismissed my own relatively short comments so far (as opposed having to discuss the whole Bible), how do you even expect me to trust that I or anyone should even require investing the time in kind to your own dismissal? If you actually expect others to read the bible as you value, read what others have to say to demonstrate your own sincerity first.

[Scott Mayers]

(3) I've read a lot of the Bible as with other works. In particular, I've invested in an overview of the whole works, including the in depth philosophical analysis by many related studies, like archeology, history, etc. So the next question has to be, WHAT is your particular sources since these matter considering other related religions and sects disagree with which works are appropriately 'valid' or trusted? Do you read an English version only? Do you accept the Jewish "Torah"? Do you use a "Christian" version that includes the New Testaments? Which one or ones do you particularly rely on?

(4) Why should your particular religious scriptures be trusted as opposed to others?

[betsy]

Creationism is not fact and it 100% unscientific. This has gone beyond ridiculous.

Look at a lot of sci-fi in the 80s. We are living in those times now.

Better review all related threads!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25665-national-academy-of-sciences-says-about-creation-of-the-universe-by-go/

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25773-no-scientist-alive-today-understands-macroevolution/

You're either in denial, and shell-shocked.....or you're simply ignorant of the arguments that gave CUMULATIVE evidences -

I repeat, C U M U L A T I V E evidences - that point to the possibility of creation.

Atheistic belief is all but annihilated - that's why we see all sorts of pathetic maneuver to make room for some movement, like "I'm an agnostic-atheist."

Digest this:

Macro evolution is the one that's proving to be more and more mythological! Thanks to all the previous claims of alleged evidence.

Evolutionists are being fanciful, extrapolating out tales not unlike Rowling yarns out Harry Potter!

The only difference is that Rowling admits to the fictional tales of Potter..........

...........whereas evolutionists started believing their own yarn, and imagine it as fact!

Edited June 27, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I know. I'm saying that if he Qu'uran provides incredible scientific foresight because it also tells of the one true Abraham God, then is it not also "God-breathed"?

Your question shows that you either don't know how Muslims and Jews/Christians are on separate paths, or

logic eludes you.

Edited June 27, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

(4) Why should your particular religious scriptures be trusted as opposed to others?

Never mind regaling me with what you've read. Irrelevant!

There's only one compulsory reading to be done here, if you're going to try to rebutt my arguments.

And that's what I'm going to ask you: have you read all the evidences given here so far?

Your question is quite revealing. And very damning.

Either you have not read the evidences given.......or, logic eludes you, too!

Or, you've read them but the logic went sailing over your head.

Edited June 27, 2016 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

The dimensions of time/space are the limits of our [observable] universe. There are all sorts of science fiction suggestions for multiple universes, many of which have an overlap with the dimensions of ours and others which our outside the dimensions of ours. Some, or all, or none of these are possibilities. The point is that from within our universe, abiding by our physics, they are beyond our capacity of observation. I don't have a problem with time having a beginning, that is just a limit of our perception. As we look out in space, we are also looking back in time. There is a limit to how far we can look out in space based on the speed of light, in the same manner there is a limit to how far we can look back in time. The cosmic background radiation is an observable confirmation of the emergence of our universe from a singularity (big bang) which yields a beginning of space/time.

I understand the issues in science here. I disagree with the interpretation of the cosmic background radiation as a proper confirmation because it is coincidental and very inevitably inferred (as a prediction) by many different possible interpretations regardless of how apparently 'fit' it seems. It is no different than how in religion that people sincerely believe that certain 'predictions' have proven sufficiently justified their belief. Worse, is that our Cosmology is NOT REPEATABLE upon such observations, as the CBR is. It is "inevitable" that such phenomena to BE 'true' for other reasons but we tend to place credit to those who simply first suggested the hypothesis when it conveniently favors us. This isn't the place to digress on this here for this thread, though. But religious origins often relate to questioning nature (as "science") with a similar secular origin but devolve into some latter religion of one sort or another in time. And they are always based on the boundaries of the present unknowns.

[Smeelious]

Don't feel the troll, imho.

Tosses Feed anyway;

A chemist, asks other chemists if they understand biology. They all say no. I find this unsurprising.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Smeelious