Jump to content

EVIDENCE FOR GOD


betsy

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Support is not the correct term here. Yes, some creationists have retold their fairy tales in a manner that adopts them to the big bang theory, but science does not support creation nonsense because there is zero evidence.

There is a purposeful 'blurr' in the politics that keep the peace by what I referred to as "support" here. What most do not know is the history and cross reference between the science, philosophy and politics regarding scientific theory because most people cannot handle the reality. While many of us can handle a nihilistic reality without the fear of falling into the depression that reality means when understanding nature, there is still a real problem should we abandon the concerns of those supporting religious beliefs regardless of how I or you may dislike it. I used to think differently until I studied enough of history, science and politics and noticed that there IS a risk should society accept the truth without care and consideration. 

Maybe we may be able to find a means in the future to resolve the concerns about irrational thought. But we are not yet even able to handle the kind of changes today regarding the present witch hunts of various cult-like thinking that even the non-religious community is adapting today BY even many scientifically 'credible' people. So I tend to at least understand the reason why those like Betty here are struggling without holding prejudice against her personally for any apparent irrationality. She is NOT irrational in light of how many outside of her views still do not see where they too ARE 'religious' in their own arrogant hypocritical ways. Our political "Multicultural" system is one that I see as just a repeat of ancient history playing out. For example, our ancestors of Egypt were NOT polytheistic irrationals as most interpret them today. To me this is proof that to in another 4000 years (if we should still exist), others will look back at our time and interpret us inappropriately as 'polytheistic' idiots as they adopt a new religion based on our scientific heroes as religious profits and gods by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, betsy said:

How can something that the science community deem valid, not "scientific?

The original scriptures of most religions did NOT write their works with any specific religion in mind. Only re-editing by many political interests have co-opted their secular history and turned it into religions, usually favoring specific people with absurd bias. Genesis, for instance, was NOT a specific set of stories about a specific group of people but a collection of secular knowledge written in a way that summarized their intellectual interpretations of ALL peoples then without bias against any specific beliefs. 

So to them, the bible summarized the secular knowledge (including science) of what they knew at the time, though much of it is now distorted to 'fit' with the evolving editing teams of people wanting to alter it to their political ends. So just because today's scientists hold a conventional explanation in common today, it does not mean it is correct. Truth is not 'democratic'. 

Unless you know the history of Steady State theory and what it is, you won't know that today's Big Bang theory has come full circle to 'agree' with the Steady State theory. What happens in institutes is that they CONSERVE credit to the collection of their intellects to a point that they cannot UNDO it without risking the credibility of the institute of science itself. It is POLITICAL. The quotes about the Big Bang theory you quoted above is FOR a naive audience like yourself to argue against the religious views you hold, NOT to discredit other scientific explanations. I believe they are mistaken to use that argument precisely because it DOESN'T remove doubt by those like yourself. Rather, you EVOLVE to adapt the views accepted by reinterpreting to support your view in defeat of their intent to dispel it.

 

Quote
2 hours ago, betsy said:

Your opinion as an atheist, is without any basis.  You're in denial.

 

And yes, it does support Creation -  I'm glad you at least, acknowledge that.  That's the thing I've been saying all along about the National Academy of Sciences' view on "THEISTIC evolution."

 

 If I now tell you that I am God, would you now 'deny' me? What would you call yourself if you lack reason to believe in me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

there is still a real problem should we abandon the concerns of those supporting religious beliefs

From a societal standpoint, I support freedom of religion (as expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Regardless of what I think of other peoples opinions on matters outside of science, I agree that they are entitled to those opinions and to express them freely in society as long as they do not infringe on other peoples rights. Way too often we have people trying to infringe on others with their justification that "my religion is better than your religion", or "my religion is better than no religion" and we have to recognize that they have then exceeded the bounds of freedom of religion because they are infringing on others. While I think that society would be better off without any of the religious bunk, history has demonstrated that trying to take it away has resulted in terrible atrocities.

In nature we have many examples of family and larger units cooperating for mutual benefit, and we also have many examples of symbiotic relationships between different species. Natural selection is what has given us our morals, and life itself is its own reward. We do not have to fear a nihilistic reality because we do have purpose based on those morals that have been developed and passed down through countless generations. There is no more validity of purpose being defined by some omniscient being than there is of purpose being developed by man. Just like we ask where God came from, it is valid to ask why did he create that purpose; was it just some cruel joke to entertain him?

14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

a collection of secular knowledge written in a way that summarized their intellectual interpretations of ALL peoples then without bias against any specific beliefs.

I agree except for the ALL. There is much knowledge that ancient civilizations had that has not been passed down through the Bible, but through other texts, traditions, and oral history.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2018 at 11:18 AM, Omni said:

Nope. We read the Lord's Prayer every day in school. It was my nose that led me out of it. Thank you nose.

Be that as it may .... Did your textbooks that covered theories regarding how the universe came into existence include any reference to the remote possibility that an intelligent being may have created the universe ?   Fact is most Government approved indoctrination centers are quite hostile to the notion that "God" exist or ever did anything. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

Be that as it may .... Did your textbooks that covered theories regarding how the universe came into existence include any reference to the remote possibility that an intelligent being may have created the universe ?   Fact is most Government approved indoctrination centers are quite hostile to the notion that "God" exist or ever did anything.

My science textbooks also didn't have the equally remote possibility that Pinocchio was a real boy, we covered that in fictional literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

Be that as it may .... Did your textbooks that covered theories regarding how the universe came into existence include any reference to the remote possibility that an intelligent being may have created the universe ?   Fact is most Government approved indoctrination centers are quite hostile to the notion that "God" exist or ever did anything. 

 

 

 

 

As I already pointed out, we read the lord's prayer, but then we went on to actual science. The education system had advance luckily for us even by that time which was a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Seeing is believing" The Bible end of era scenario is coming true before our eyes
OT predicted Israel would be dispersed and regathered. It happened.
OT predicted "great power" to "remote north" would lead invasion of Israel. Russia poised to do it.


Revelation 13->forward predicts an end of era One World Government [that the Beast will rule over].
"Sovereign" nations now being turned into failed states in order to bring about creation of the predicted One World Government.

The entity that perfectly and uniquely fits the specification of the Great Whore is out in open.
The G.W. has been seen and is seen by millions for centuries.
Two men who perfectly and uniquely fit the specifications of the two Beast of Rev 13 now live.
Both Beasts of Revelation 13 have famous names. The subordinate Beast is out in the open.

The supreme Beast [who received "fatal appearing head wound"] is waiting in the wings.
The supreme Beast that "was + is not + is to come" will "amaze the world" when he publicly emerges.

Within past few decades technology required for the "marking" ["cashless society"] has been created.
Within past few decades the technology needed to focus whole world attention on one man at one time has come into being.
Within past few decades "Global problems" [supporting call for One World Government] came to be seen by the masses.

Increasingly Atheist and Bible scorners will be seen to be willfully blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

"Seeing is believing" The Bible end of era scenario is coming true before our eyes
...

Increasingly Atheist and Bible scorners will be seen to be willfully blind.

 

We have heard the story of the apocalypse before, the world was supposed to end the following dates, with those who predicted it. Sorry, but that story is getting stale.

 

 

66–70 Simon bar Giora, Jewish Essenes

365 Hilary of Poitiers

375–400 Martin of Tours

500 Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus, Irenaeus

793-04-06 Beatus of Liébana

800 Sextus Julius Africanus

799–806 Gregory of Tours

848 Thiota

992–995 Various Christians

1000-01-01 Pope Sylvester II

1033 Various Christians

1200–1260 Joachim of Fiore

1284 Pope Innocent III

1290

1335 Joachimites

1346–1351 Various Europeans

1370 Jean de Roquetaillade

1378 Arnaldus de Villa Nova

1504 Sandro Botticelli

1524-02-01 London astrologers

1524-02-20 Johannes Stöffler

1524–1526 Thomas Müntzer

1528-05-27 Hans Hut

1528 Johannes Stöffler

1533-10-19 Michael Stifel

1533 Melchior Hoffman

1534-04-05 Jan Matthys

1555 Pierre d'Ailly

1585 Michael Servetus

1588 Regiomontanus

1600 Martin Luther

1624-02-01 London astrologers

1648 Sabbatai Zevi

1651 Unknown author from Lübeck, Germany

1654 Helisaeus Roeslin

1656 Christopher Columbus

1655–1657 Fifth Monarchists

1658 Christopher Columbus

1660 Joseph Mede

1666 Sabbatai Zevi

Fifth Monarchists

1673 William Aspinwall

1688 John Napier

1689 Pierre Jurieu

1694 John Mason

Johann Heinrich Alsted

Johann Jacob Zimmermann

1697 Cotton Mather

1700 John Napier

Henry Archer

1705–1708 Camisards

1716 Cotton Mather

1719-04-05 Jacob Bernoulli

1700–1734 Nicholas of Cusa

1736-10-16 William Whiston

1736 Cotton Mather

1757 Emanuel Swedenborg

1780-05-19 Connecticut General Assembly members, New Englanders

1789 Pierre d'Ailly

1792

1794 Shakers

1795-11-19 Nathaniel Brassey Halhed

1793–1795 Richard Brothers

1805 Christopher Love

1806 Mary Bateman

1814-10-19 Joanna Southcott

1836 Johann Albrecht Bengel

1836 John Wesley

1843 Apr 28

1843 Dec 31 Millerites

1843 Harriet Livermore

1844-03-21 William Miller

1844-10-22 Millerites

1847-08-07 George Rapp

1847 Harriet Livermore

1853–1856 Various

1862 John Cumming

Joseph Morris

1863 John Wroe

1873 Jonas Wendell

1874 Charles Taze Russell

1875-1925 Wilford Woodruff

1881 Mother Shipton (attrib.)

1890 Wovoka

1901 Catholic Apostolic Church

1910 Camille Flammarion

1892–1911 Charles Piazzi Smyth

1914 Charles Taze Russell

1915 John Chilembwe

1918 International Bible Students Association

1920 International Bible Students Association

1925-02-13 Margaret Rowen

1926 Spencer Perceval

1935-09-01 Wilbur Glenn Voliva

1936 Herbert W. Armstrong

1941 Jehovah's Witnesses

1943 Herbert W. Armstrong

1947 John Ballou Newbrough

1954-12-21 Dorothy Martin

1959-04-22 Florence Houteff

1962-02-04 Jeane Dixon, various Indian astrologers

1967-08-20 George Van Tassel

1967 Jim Jones

1969-08-09 George Williams

1969 Charles Manson

1972 Herbert W. Armstrong

1974-01-01 David Berg

1975 Herbert W. Armstrong

Jehovah's Witnesses

1976 Brahma Kumaris

1977 John Wroe

William M. Branham

1980 Leland Jensen

1981 Chuck Smith

1982 Apr–Jun Tara Centers

1982-03-10 John Gribbin, Stephen Plagemann

1982-06-21 Benjamin Creme

1982 Pat Robertson

1985 Lester Sumrall

1986-04-29 Leland Jensen

1987-08-17 José Argüelles

1988 Sep 11–13, Oct 3 Edgar C. Whisenant

1989-09-30 Edgar C. Whisenant

1990-04-23 Elizabeth Clare Prophet

1991-09-09 Menachem Mendel Schneerson

1991 Louis Farrakhan

1992-09-28 Rollen Stewart

1992-10-28 Lee Jang Rim

(이장림 or 李長林)

1993 David Berg

1994-05-02 Neal Chase

1994 Sep 6/29, Oct 2 Harold Camping

1995-03-31 Harold Camping

1996-12-17 Sheldan Nidle

1997-03-26 Marshall Applewhite

1997-08-10 Aggai

1997-10-23 James Ussher

1998-03-31 Chen Tao

(陳恆明)

1999-07-01 Nostradamus

1999-08-18 The Amazing Criswell

1999-09-11 Philip Berg

1999 Charles Berlitz

Hon-Ming Chen

James Gordon Lindsay

Timothy Dwight IV

Nazim Al-Haqqani

2000-01-01 Various

Credonia Mwerinde, Joseph Kibweteere

Jerry Falwell

Tim LaHaye, Jerry B. Jenkins

2000-04-06 James Harmston

2000-05-05 Nuwaubian Nation

2000 Peter Olivi

Isaac Newton

Ruth Montgomery

Edgar Cayce

Sun Myung Moon

Ed Dobson

Lester Sumrall

Jonathan Edwards

2001 Tynnetta Muhammad

2003-05-27 Nancy Lieder

2003 Oct 30–Nov 29 Aum Shinrikyo

2006-09-12 House of Yahweh

2007-04-29 Pat Robertson

2010 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

2011-05-21 Harold Camping

2011-09-29 Ronald Weinland

2011-10-21 Harold Camping

2011 Aug–Oct Various

2012-05-27 Ronald Weinland

2012-06-30 José Luis de Jesús

2012-12-21 Various

2013-08-23 Grigori Rasputin

2014 Apr – 2015 Sep John Hagee and Mark Biltz

2017 Sep 23 – Oct 25 David Meade

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

My science textbooks also didn't have the equally remote possibility that Pinocchio was a real boy, we covered that in fictional literature.

I think that Pinocchio should be given equal credit as any of those bible figures. The best he could do was make his nose grow but those others could make a camel fit a camel fit through the eye of a needle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

We have heard the story of the apocalypse before, the world was supposed to end the following dates, with those who predicted it. Sorry, but that story is getting stale.

 

 

66–70 Simon bar Giora, Jewish Essenes

365 Hilary of Poitiers

375–400 Martin of Tours

500 Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus, Irenaeus

793-04-06 Beatus of Liébana

800 Sextus Julius Africanus

799–806 Gregory of Tours

848 Thiota

992–995 Various Christians

1000-01-01 Pope Sylvester II

1033 Various Christians

1200–1260 Joachim of Fiore

1284 Pope Innocent III

1290

1335 Joachimites

1346–1351 Various Europeans

1370 Jean de Roquetaillade

1378 Arnaldus de Villa Nova

1504 Sandro Botticelli

1524-02-01 London astrologers

1524-02-20 Johannes Stöffler

1524–1526 Thomas Müntzer

1528-05-27 Hans Hut

1528 Johannes Stöffler

1533-10-19 Michael Stifel

1533 Melchior Hoffman

1534-04-05 Jan Matthys

1555 Pierre d'Ailly

1585 Michael Servetus

1588 Regiomontanus

1600 Martin Luther

1624-02-01 London astrologers

1648 Sabbatai Zevi

1651 Unknown author from Lübeck, Germany

1654 Helisaeus Roeslin

1656 Christopher Columbus

1655–1657 Fifth Monarchists

1658 Christopher Columbus

1660 Joseph Mede

1666 Sabbatai Zevi

Fifth Monarchists

1673 William Aspinwall

1688 John Napier

1689 Pierre Jurieu

1694 John Mason

Johann Heinrich Alsted

Johann Jacob Zimmermann

1697 Cotton Mather

1700 John Napier

Henry Archer

1705–1708 Camisards

1716 Cotton Mather

1719-04-05 Jacob Bernoulli

1700–1734 Nicholas of Cusa

1736-10-16 William Whiston

1736 Cotton Mather

1757 Emanuel Swedenborg

1780-05-19 Connecticut General Assembly members, New Englanders

1789 Pierre d'Ailly

1792

1794 Shakers

1795-11-19 Nathaniel Brassey Halhed

1793–1795 Richard Brothers

1805 Christopher Love

1806 Mary Bateman

1814-10-19 Joanna Southcott

1836 Johann Albrecht Bengel

1836 John Wesley

1843 Apr 28

1843 Dec 31 Millerites

1843 Harriet Livermore

1844-03-21 William Miller

1844-10-22 Millerites

1847-08-07 George Rapp

1847 Harriet Livermore

1853–1856 Various

1862 John Cumming

Joseph Morris

1863 John Wroe

1873 Jonas Wendell

1874 Charles Taze Russell

1875-1925 Wilford Woodruff

1881 Mother Shipton (attrib.)

1890 Wovoka

1901 Catholic Apostolic Church

1910 Camille Flammarion

1892–1911 Charles Piazzi Smyth

1914 Charles Taze Russell

1915 John Chilembwe

1918 International Bible Students Association

1920 International Bible Students Association

1925-02-13 Margaret Rowen

1926 Spencer Perceval

1935-09-01 Wilbur Glenn Voliva

1936 Herbert W. Armstrong

1941 Jehovah's Witnesses

1943 Herbert W. Armstrong

1947 John Ballou Newbrough

1954-12-21 Dorothy Martin

1959-04-22 Florence Houteff

1962-02-04 Jeane Dixon, various Indian astrologers

1967-08-20 George Van Tassel

1967 Jim Jones

1969-08-09 George Williams

1969 Charles Manson

1972 Herbert W. Armstrong

1974-01-01 David Berg

1975 Herbert W. Armstrong

Jehovah's Witnesses

1976 Brahma Kumaris

1977 John Wroe

William M. Branham

1980 Leland Jensen

1981 Chuck Smith

1982 Apr–Jun Tara Centers

1982-03-10 John Gribbin, Stephen Plagemann

1982-06-21 Benjamin Creme

1982 Pat Robertson

1985 Lester Sumrall

1986-04-29 Leland Jensen

1987-08-17 José Argüelles

1988 Sep 11–13, Oct 3 Edgar C. Whisenant

1989-09-30 Edgar C. Whisenant

1990-04-23 Elizabeth Clare Prophet

1991-09-09 Menachem Mendel Schneerson

1991 Louis Farrakhan

1992-09-28 Rollen Stewart

1992-10-28 Lee Jang Rim

(이장림 or 李長林)

1993 David Berg

1994-05-02 Neal Chase

1994 Sep 6/29, Oct 2 Harold Camping

1995-03-31 Harold Camping

1996-12-17 Sheldan Nidle

1997-03-26 Marshall Applewhite

1997-08-10 Aggai

1997-10-23 James Ussher

1998-03-31 Chen Tao

(陳恆明)

1999-07-01 Nostradamus

1999-08-18 The Amazing Criswell

1999-09-11 Philip Berg

1999 Charles Berlitz

Hon-Ming Chen

James Gordon Lindsay

Timothy Dwight IV

Nazim Al-Haqqani

2000-01-01 Various

Credonia Mwerinde, Joseph Kibweteere

Jerry Falwell

Tim LaHaye, Jerry B. Jenkins

2000-04-06 James Harmston

2000-05-05 Nuwaubian Nation

2000 Peter Olivi

Isaac Newton

Ruth Montgomery

Edgar Cayce

Sun Myung Moon

Ed Dobson

Lester Sumrall

Jonathan Edwards

2001 Tynnetta Muhammad

2003-05-27 Nancy Lieder

2003 Oct 30–Nov 29 Aum Shinrikyo

2006-09-12 House of Yahweh

2007-04-29 Pat Robertson

2010 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

2011-05-21 Harold Camping

2011-09-29 Ronald Weinland

2011-10-21 Harold Camping

2011 Aug–Oct Various

2012-05-27 Ronald Weinland

2012-06-30 José Luis de Jesús

2012-12-21 Various

2013-08-23 Grigori Rasputin

2014 Apr – 2015 Sep John Hagee and Mark Biltz

2017 Sep 23 – Oct 25 David Meade

Most you list lived before (for instance)  the rebirth of Israel.  

Before the technology for the "marking" was invented.  

Before technology enabling focus of the world to be on one man at one time came in existence.  

RIGHT NOW all with eyes can see that the "sovereign" nations are being brought down ... as they must be brought down in order for the cashless One World Government to be created. 

Currently you are just a pathetic willfully blind man 

 

Edited by John Prewett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That nearly 2000 years ago, the Revelation predicted a "marking" enabling control of "buying and selling" of billions of people world wide is a sign that the Revelation is from God as it claims it is.

 

For centuries skeptics claimed this proved the bible false, because they deemed impossible for any "mark" to control buying and selling all over the world.

 

Today,  as many are aware of,  technology exist to make literal "marking" completely feasible
 

I wonder how anyone can fail to see that the "micro-chip" implant allowing government  to monitor and control world wide commerce,  is not only feasible,  it is inevitable.

 

The Revelation has been conveying blessing [as it promises to do] past, present and future.

 

Satan wants people to think the Revelation is all in the past or just fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Prewett said:

Satan wants people to think the Revelation is all in the past or just fiction.

So you are on first person speaking terms with god and satan? wow! Tell'em both to go to hell for me will ya. Oh yeah I forgot one of 'ems already there. Right then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Prewett said:

Your current gross ignorance of God, Satan and the value of the Revelation is noted.  

That's good, and I remind you I came by that ignorance fully intentionally. Especially after experiencing the horrors that religion has fraught in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

Most you list lived before (for instance)  the rebirth of Israel.  

I count 20 dates after 2000 alone, made by many people. Yes, Christians have been at this predicting the end of the world for a long time so having a lot of dates is not surprising. The point is that they have all failed to come true.  I didn't bother to add future dates because of course I can't say they didn't come true yet, but here are some for your pleasure: You will note that some of them were made by people long dead.

2020 Jeane Dixon

2021 F. Kenton Beshore

2026 Messiah Foundation International

2060 Isaac Newton

2129 Said Nursî

2239 Talmud, Orthodox Judaism

2280 Rashad Khalifa

 

16 minutes ago, John Prewett said:

Currently you are just a pathetic willfully blind man

Your pejoratives add so much maturity to the debate, perhaps you could debate Donald Trump on his own terms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within past 50 year, modern science has uncovered a vast amount of information about living creatures that was unknown to the Darwin era.  

Knowledge of DNA alone makes 'blind chance' evolution implausible.   An intelligent designer is the ONLY rational explanation for living creatures. 

Naturally, many remain in denial.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Support is not the correct term here. Yes, some creationists have retold their fairy tales in a manner that adopts them to the big bang theory, but science does not support creation nonsense because there is zero evidence.

You haven't been reading, or you're simply disregarding what was given. 

Sounds like you're simply repeating a mantra (more so to convince yourself).  I'm not going to bother trying to discuss with what seems to have turned into a brickwall.  That usually happens with some atheists when faced with the NAS fact about its stance on Theistic Evolution, you know.  Blinders automatically come down. They get into........

...........  DEAF-con mode:D

 

I'll be ignoring your posts until you've got something that's worth responding to.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

The original scriptures of most religions did NOT write their works with any specific religion in mind. Only re-editing by many political interests have co-opted their secular history and turned it into religions, usually favoring specific people with absurd bias. Genesis, for instance, was NOT a specific set of stories about a specific group of people but a collection of secular knowledge written in a way that summarized their intellectual interpretations of ALL peoples then without bias against any specific beliefs. 

So to them, the bible summarized the secular knowledge (including science) of what they knew at the time, though much of it is now distorted to 'fit' with the evolving editing teams of people wanting to alter it to their political ends. So just because today's scientists hold a conventional explanation in common today, it does not mean it is correct. Truth is not 'democratic'. 

Unless you know the history of Steady State theory and what it is, you won't know that today's Big Bang theory has come full circle to 'agree' with the Steady State theory. What happens in institutes is that they CONSERVE credit to the collection of their intellects to a point that they cannot UNDO it without risking the credibility of the institute of science itself. It is POLITICAL. The quotes about the Big Bang theory you quoted above is FOR a naive audience like yourself to argue against the religious views you hold, NOT to discredit other scientific explanations. I believe they are mistaken to use that argument precisely because it DOESN'T remove doubt by those like yourself. Rather, you EVOLVE to adapt the views accepted by reinterpreting to support your view in defeat of their intent to dispel it.

 

 If I now tell you that I am God, would you now 'deny' me? What would you call yourself if you lack reason to believe in me?

 IRRELEVANT! 

 

There are many theories being given.  That's nothing new.  As far as I know, according to NASA's faq section (the space agency)  - the Big Bang is still it!   The FAQ section is for the public - things are explained in "layman's terms."  The section on the Big Bang faq wasn't in answer to a religious query - so, there you go.  You're dead wrong!

 

That's one thing about some atheists, you know - they don't want anything that smells like, or gives a hint to the possibility of a God.  You said it yourself - the reason you reject the Big Bang!   You said...

 

Quote

I'm atheist. The 'Big Bang' is NOT actually appropriately 'scientific' in my opinion precisely because it does support at minimal a Deistic interpretation.....

See?  If anything does support even just a MINIMAL deistic interpretation (like the Big Bang)......alarms go off! Blinders automatically come down.....atheists like you get into DEAF-CON mode!

 

That's why I keep saying.......atheists are forced to be close-minded.  They cannot afford to accept the POSSIBILITY of God's existence, even if science says it so.  They cannot afford to be open-minded.  That's the reason why when push comes to shove.....they can't give any rational rebuttals.   The mouthy, new atheists in forums are all simply loud bravado, and hot air!  

We're not all scientists here, you know.  I highly doubt you are.   That's one more  thing with some atheists - they all think they are scientists!  I think some actually believe their own make-believe!  They seem to be lost in another world.....that they think their opinion - without anything to support it - is worth anything in a discussion such as this issue.   Like as if a sensible person on planet earth can't see through all the bs! :D

 

 

That's another thing!  They don't usually give their sources voluntarily.  You gotta pry it out of them, too!  If they do give their sources, I'd found that it pays off for me to read what they quoted from.  It usually backfires on them.  I've used atheists' given sources against them in a lot of my discussions over the years.

 

Whatever dubious so-called "scientific" sources you're mining from......it lacks credibility.... if it goes against the NAS and NASA. 

Until NASA changes their FAQ story about the Big Bang - I'll take their word when it comes to that, thank you.

 

 

 

I say read the NAS statement, and try to understand it. 

 

Lol:  if you tell me you're God....I'll not only deny you.....I'll also say you need psychiatric help!    That, only shows, you're not getting the rational argument given in this thread.  It's simply sailing over your head.   Kindly do your homework, and read all my posts, starting with the OP.

 

***Hint:  corroborating evidence(s).

 

To be fair, I'll have to treat you like Impact - since you both seem to have come from the same mould.  I'm not shooting the breeze here with anyone.....I'll be ignoring your posts until you've got something worth responding to.

 

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, betsy said:

You haven't been reading, or you're simply disregarding what was given. 

Sounds like you're simply repeating a mantra (more so to convince yourself).  I'm not going to bother trying to discuss with what seems to have turned into a brickwall.  That usually happens with some atheists when faced with the NAS fact about its stance on Theistic Evolution, you know.  Blinders automatically come down. They get into........

...........  DEAF-con mode:D

 

I'll be ignoring your posts until you've got something that's worth responding to.

Cool, in lieu of providing evidence you also turn to pejoratives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2018 at 8:53 AM, ?Impact said:

Support is not the correct term here. Yes, some creationists have retold their fairy tales in a manner that adopts them to the big bang theory, but science does not support creation nonsense because there is zero evidence.

 Consider what God says about those who despise the Word of God, the Holy Bible.

"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it."   Jeremiah 6:10

Appears your ear is "uncircumcised".

" Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts." Zechariah 7:12

So it also appears your heart is as an adamant stone.

Those who set themselves against God's word are like ants who want to fight against an elephant.  Makes about as much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/01/2018 at 12:11 AM, John Prewett said:

Be that as it may .... Did your textbooks that covered theories regarding how the universe came into existence include any reference to the remote possibility that an intelligent being may have created the universe ?   Fact is most Government approved indoctrination centers are quite hostile to the notion that "God" exist or ever did anything. 

Should the textbooks also include mentioning ALL religion's theories about origins? Tell me, should the textbook reserve a chapter on those who believe Aliens from other planets came here and originally planted humans here? What about Buddha? What about each and every theory by each and every claim believed true about origins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...