Jump to content

Do you believe in a divine Creator of the universe and everything in it, including mankind?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Eh?

No, I meant that the poster had apparently had the word "riddance" changed to "radiance" by a spelling corrector.

The head of the BC CLA should lose her position immediately, if what you say here is true.  There can be no compromise on that.

It was on BC Global TV news tonight.  Minister Farnsworth possibly of Public Safety condemned the comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

It was on BC Global TV news tonight.  Minister Farnsworth possibly of Public Safety condemned the comment.

Such a ridiculous comment.  It only has to be transposed to other religions and other atrocities to incite rampant outrage.  She wouldn't last long enough in her position for Twitter to ban her account.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like,

If one of today's cosmological mathematicians were to give a speech here about the early state of the universe and the mathematics that gives rise to our multi-dimensional reality, we wouldn't understand a god-damned thing they were saying.

They could however speak to us about their theories using a symbolic language, in a way that other people could at least get a sense of it. Their knowledge transferred by the metaphors which they provide.

Ok, let's write all that shit down in a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It's like,

If one of today's cosmological mathematicians were to give a speech here about the early state of the universe and the mathematics that gives rise to our multi-dimensional reality, we wouldn't understand a god-damned thing they were saying.

They could however speak to us about their theories using a symbolic language, in a way that other people could at least get a sense of it. Their knowledge transferred by the metaphors which they provide.

Ok, let's write all that shit down in a book.

Nah, it's like,

that big f*****g yellow thing came up again.  It's been doing that for days now.

If I pretend I'm friends with whoever's in charge of it, I bet I can get more berries, and I won't have to go on the mastadon hunt.

I bet I get more sex too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/30/2021 at 10:40 PM, Alter2Ego said:

The evolution theory is formulated on the unprovable claim that life began either in the ocean or in a pond--from slime that resulted when various organisms/chemicals blended together.

First the theory of evolution(which is pretty well established) has almost nothing to do with origins of life(abiogenesis)

 

On 6/30/2021 at 10:40 PM, Alter2Ego said:

"The Big Bang was like no explosion

Because it was an expansion of a singularity, there was no bang

tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life. 

Funny no mention of pond or slime there

What i was commenting on was the obvious lack of scientific understanding when one uses pseudoscientific terminology to describe complex theories they don't fully grasp, especially when it's to argue the existence of somthing that has zero scientific support

the OP correctly states the atheists' Big Bang theory being touted in parts of academia

Many religious people agree with both evolution and the big bang, and furthermore the notion that it's only "parts of academia" is a ridiculous claim.

In conclusion neither of these theories in anyway disprove any god concept(which are by definition unfaulsifiable), and misrepresenting science just shows that some believers are willfully ignorant, of as you said "reality"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2021 at 6:48 AM, SkyHigh said:

First the theory of evolution(which is pretty well established) has almost nothing to do with origins of life(abiogenesis)

 

Because it was an expansion of a singularity, there was no bang

tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life. 

Funny no mention of pond or slime there

What i was commenting on was the obvious lack of scientific understanding when one uses pseudoscientific terminology to describe complex theories they don't fully grasp, especially when it's to argue the existence of somthing that has zero scientific support

the OP correctly states the atheists' Big Bang theory being touted in parts of academia

Many religious people agree with both evolution and the big bang, and furthermore the notion that it's only "parts of academia" is a ridiculous claim.

In conclusion neither of these theories in anyway disprove any god concept(which are by definition unfaulsifiable), and misrepresenting science just shows that some believers are willfully ignorant, of as you said "reality"

 

The theory of life beginning on it's own by what is called "random chance processes" has been shown to be an impossibility.  The reason is the mathematical law of probability makes it impossible for the correct molecules to come together to create the most basic life forms.  One scientist said it would be like someone winning the lottery every week repeatedly for a year.  Even that is probably a vast understatement.  Another example has been given.  Give a monkey a typewriter and let him type randomly.  How long would it take for the monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare?  That is what you are dealing with. The mathematical law of probability says any odds less than 10 to the 50th power is basically a non-existent probability of happening.  That is one chance in the number 10 followed by 50 zeroes.  Mathematician scientists say that equates to virtually zero chance of happening.  That is what we're dealing with here they say.  Some scientists tried to replicate the forming of life by experiments in test tubes, but this has been abandoned as a failure and useless effort.

If you consider the complexity of the most basic life forms and the required intelligence built into them, you will begin to grasp some idea of what you are up against.  But how the most basic life form operates is a complex biological subject and if you have some idea of it's complexity you will understand why it could not just come about by random drifting of molecules.  Suffice to say the way the basic life forms operate and reproduce is extremely complex, far more so than the most complex computer systems devised by man.  Therefore, there is no rational support for the theory that life began by random chance processes.  It is virtually an impossibility.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2021 at 6:48 AM, SkyHigh said:

First the theory of evolution(which is pretty well established) has almost nothing to do with origins of life(abiogenesis)

 

Because it was an expansion of a singularity, there was no bang

tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life. 

Funny no mention of pond or slime there

What i was commenting on was the obvious lack of scientific understanding when one uses pseudoscientific terminology to describe complex theories they don't fully grasp, especially when it's to argue the existence of somthing that has zero scientific support

the OP correctly states the atheists' Big Bang theory being touted in parts of academia

Many religious people agree with both evolution and the big bang, and furthermore the notion that it's only "parts of academia" is a ridiculous claim.

In conclusion neither of these theories in anyway disprove any god concept(which are by definition unfaulsifiable), and misrepresenting science just shows that some believers are willfully ignorant, of as you said "reality"

 

Another thing to consider which is crucial to understanding is the complexity of the most basic building block of life, the cell.

"

Independent single-celled organisms must conduct all the basic processes of life: it must take in nutrients (energy capture), excrete wastes, detect and respond to its environment, move, breathe, grow, and reproduce. Even a one-celled organism must be organized to perform these essential processes. All cells are organized from the atomic level to all its larger forms. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms combine to make the molecule water (H2O). Molecules bond together to make bigger macromolecules. The carbon atom is often referred to as the backbone of life because it can readily bond with four other elements to form long chains and more complex macromolecules. Four macromolecules—carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids—make up all of the structural and functional units of cells.

Figure 3.2.13.2.1: The cell is structurally and functionally complex.

Although we defined the cell as the “most basic” unit of life, it is structurally and functionally complex (Figure 3.2.13.2.1). A cell can be thought of as a mini-organism consisting of tiny organs called organelles. The organelles are structural and functional units constructed from several macromolecules bonded together. A typical animal cell contains the following organelles: the nucleus (which houses the genetic material DNA), mitochondria (which generate energy), ribosomes (which produce protein), the endoplasmic reticulum (which is a packaging and transport facility), and the golgi apparatus (which distributes macromolecules). In addition, animal cells contain little digestive pouches, called lysosomes and peroxisomes, which break down macromolecules and destroy foreign invaders. All of the organelles are anchored in the cell’s cytoplasm via a cytoskeleton. The cell’s organelles are isolated from the surrounding environment by a plasma membrane."

A cell cannot live, function, or reproduce unless it has all the complex parts that make it functional.  Unfortunately evolutionists just brushed that off as unimportant.  At the time the theory of evolution was developed by Darwin in the 1800s, very little was understood about the complexity of life and the complexity of how the most basic cells functioned.  It is irrational to say certain molecules just came together by accident to form this complex living organism or cell.

3.2: The Basic Structural and Functional Unit of Life- The Cell - Medicine LibreTexts

The problem evolutionists and random chance process theorists face is all the correct structures of a cell would have to come together somehow (how is not explained) in one living unit we call a cell.  If one part was not there, it could not function or live.  The parts of a cell are all interconnected and must function perfectly in a complex manner.  The individual parts of a cell are themselves so complex and controlled by the equivalent of an infinitely powerful computer or intelligence.  It is as if intelligence is actually built into the various parts that make up the cell to direct how it is to function. That makes the whole idea of it occurring by chance an impossibility.

You want proof of God, there it is in microscopic form.

cell.jpg

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 6:04 AM, OftenWrong said:

"I have flown beyond the limits of Earth and into the heavens. I did not see the face of God." - Yuri G. OftenWrong

 

The Bible says God is a spirit and is separate from the creation which he created.  Therefore one cannot travel into space and expect to "see God".  This is different from some eastern religions which think God is a part of the creation.  Since God created everything, it makes sense that he is separate from the creation.  There are some in the environmental movement who seem to worship mother earth.   They attribute deity to God's creation, which is incorrect.  Many native religions also attribute deity to various animals, birds or creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a person to believe in any god, without proof of his goodness, would not be the best thinking or choice.

It would kill the ability to chose another who might be better.

Goodness is the foundation of godliness. Yahweh is demonstrably evil, yet has a large following who never dare discuss morals and resort to inquisition and jihad type of insults to their brighter, non-supernatural god brethren.

 If being a decent citizen was based on the desires of destroying the majority who are not like them, real life would be hell, as many would not be able to stop the antics of the young who kill. The young know that we love war and too many oblige, even as the numbers are better than ever.

Yet we thing those who pray for Armageddon are good decent people.

I say to hell with all who want to end my life just for thinking in a more moral way than  my poor delusional brethren.

I say that because, as an idol worshiper, you have given up your free will. 

You have damned yourself to hell, by doing such a harm to your mind, --- and running away from facing the morals that have you using inquisition and jihad tactics for mind control.

Bishop Spong foretold that the savior belief, because of all it's immoral tenets would be what kills Christianity as a whole.

He was wrong. It will kill all religions that respect that and that is most of them, be they have a supernatural god or not.

I invite Jesus believers to argue.

If there is goodness in you or your genocidal god, then come and explain why he always kills, when Jesus, alias Yahweh of The Terrible Trinity shame, come and learn the evil you adore and why your religion had to grow with murder, as your ancients as well as yourself, if you could, were to morally corrupt to convert with love.

Regards

DL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/30/2021 at 3:22 PM, French Patriot said:

For a person to believe in any god, without proof of his goodness, would not be the best thinking or choice.

It would kill the ability to chose another who might be better.

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.  But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 

The plants do not choose the gardener, the gardener chooses which plants to let grow, and which weeds to pull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Logger guy said:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.  But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 

Good analogy. I like to think it was rye they were growing. And things went wrong, just like you get some weeds on a new lawn. It just happens sometimes without a reason. They were already in the god damned seed.

That is the way I look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
On 3/15/2021 at 2:37 PM, blackbird said:

The evidence is all around us that the complex, intricate universe required a divine Creator to design and create it, as recorded in Genesis of the Bible.  Yet we are told by much of the secular world that the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are facts. 

Do you find that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with a god creating the universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you find that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with a god creating the universe?

Consider. If there is a supernatural god, then there are many. The first commandment hints at this.

Further, such a god would have the problem of evil, while a nature based god does not.

Scriptures have a supernatural god creating for our worst end, Yahweh and genocide/Armageddon,  while nature demonstrably creates us and sustains us for our best end.

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you find that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with a god creating the universe?

Yes.  Genesis ch.1 describes how God created everything is six days.  This is meant to be taken literally.  There is nothing there to indicate otherwise.  "31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. "  Genesis 1:31 KJV  The creation event was a supernatural event.

The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory written by someone who rejected the Biblical account and came up with a theory which many have debunked and rejected as false.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

Yes.  Genesis ch.1 describes how God created everything is six days.  This is meant to be taken literally.  There is nothing there to indicate otherwise.  "31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. "  Genesis 1:31 KJV  The creation event was a supernatural event.

The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory written by someone who rejected the Biblical account and came up with a theory which many have debunked and rejected as false.  

Should everything in the bible be taken literally?

I agree…. It’s just a theory, like gravity or germs causing disease.

Edited by TreeBeard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Should everything in the bible be taken literally?

The Bible is a book which originated from God and gives an account of many supernatural events.  Some things are written in an obvious way to be metaphorical.  Others things are actual accounts of supernatural events.  There are many people who interpret things in the Bible that are not meant to be taken metaphorically.

"I never like the question, “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.

Clearly, even those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc.

A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query."

Taking the Bible “Literally” | Bible.org

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes.  Genesis ch.1 describes how God created everything is six days.  This is meant to be taken literally.  There is nothing there to indicate otherwise.  "31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. "  Genesis 1:31 KJV  The creation event was a supernatural event.

The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory written by someone who rejected the Biblical account and came up with a theory which many have debunked and rejected as false.  

How, when and by who were dinosaurs debunked? 

Is the talking serpent in Eden real or metaphors or something else?

That serpent was prophesied to be with us forever but few serpents are talking.

We should let the Nobel people know. This deserves a prize.

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

How, when and by who were dinosaurs debunked? 

Is the talking serpent in Eden real or metaphors or something else?

That serpent was prophesied to be with us forever but few serpents are talking.

We should let the Nobel people know. This deserves a prize.

Regards

DL

Nobody denies dinosaurs existed.  So that is a phony claim.  A talking serpent could well have happened.  As I said these events are supernatural in nature.  If you don't believe in the supernatural, there's not much anyone can say.  You have a mental block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.

Maybe a better question would be “how do you know what to take in the bible literally and what not to”?

You take Genesis literally.

Do you take literally that you shouldn’t work on the Sabbath and those who do should be put to death?

If you don’t take this literally, why not?

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

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.

Guest
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.

×
×
  • Create New...