God vs. Science

[The12lber]

To those that don't believe in a god, and believe in pure science, please review the mathematical probility of the "big bang" actually happening - 10 to the 38th power. Science cannot explain how matter came into existence. Period.
If you wish to believe in the big bang and evolution, understand that you are accepting it completely on faith in men's words, and you have become no different that the Christians, Muslims, Jew, etc, that you dispise. BTW - there is no problem with that either. It's your life, and your choice. Just don't try to act holier-than-thou to everyone else. Evolutionary "science" is the faith of the atheist.

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use scientific evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

[Thighs]

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use science evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

LOLOL PWNT. that was actually one of the smartest and most well written things ive read on the topic in a long time. reps to you sir.

[Maniac1]

TTT. Yota_box, im waiting for your reply... :)

[YoTa_BoX]

Actually I did read that part. But you failed to answer my question, once again. You said, "if you don't have enough knowledge of both sides of the card(you didn't say card, im just saying it to use as an example) then you shouldn't post up posts that carry no weight on this subject." Then I brought up the fact that the pastor who also doesn't have knowledge of both sides of the card.

You then continued to bring up scientists. And comparing them to pastors. Which was good. Yet, that came with a price. My question now had two not one supporting parts of the question. All that did was add another liter of fuel to the fire.

Which is fine. But you used that as a trump card to avoid answering my first question. Should they stop, because they're in a way like me? They have more knowledge on their field than the other because thats what they're using all their time and energy on... Am I doing something differently? No. Im also gaining more knowledge from religion, by going to church and asking questions. So once again, you didn't answer my question. But after reading your posts I don't expect to see an answer anytime soon.

Again, you know nothing about my knowledge when it comes to this topic. I brought up the fact that the bible said that the earth was created in 7 days. You then said that I had no knowledge because God said a day for him is 1000 years. Ok. Thats the only post of mine that you went out of your way to try to prove me wrong.
But again, you failed. Because the earth wasn't created in 7,000 years. LOL I mean if you believe that you're the only dumbass in this thread.

Im doing the same. Am I still a bad person with no knowledge or in the same category with both pastors and scientists?

I agree with 50% of what you posted.

Im not tripping about anything that has been said in this thread, dude. Far from it. Im enjoying every minute of it... Seems to me like you're the only one taking this seriously seeing as you were the first one to use a bad word on the other person. Lolol. Its ok man, if you really want to win this argument, you win. I give up.


Alright then, Both Pastors and scientists Read and learn about Both sides of this argument. If they did not they would Be Biased like you and only know half the story. Yes Pastors do research on Science Believe it or not. For one to Preach against something he has to first Know what he is Preaching against.

Most of your posts are Rants about stuff and nothing Factual to them. Im just telling you Bring more to the table than you have...because from what you have shown you know little of both sides. I read all your comments on this thread and i posted the one that made really any factual remarks.

As far as what i believe in like i said im not sure yet. Im researching both sides of the table because both interest me.

and just so you wont say im getting around the question some other Way


NO they should not stop what they are doing.

Why you ask...Because Both Scientists and Pastors have to research on what they are trying to Disprove otherwise they would look like idiots.

[Maniac1]

That post was just a copy with an extra grain of salt from the others before it. If you can't say anything that I haven't already read, just forget about this argument. I thought I would actually learn something from you, but looks like just another person who acts like his knowledge is superior to mine.

Which is just not the case. But that doesn't matter now, I know you won't think differently, So I quit.

ps; Looks like you won this battle. :rolleyes:

[YoTa_BoX]

lol maniac im not trying to win any battles here. As far as Knowledge goes on the matter im just looking at what you posted man..which you told me to do and it would show me what you knew about it. I read all your posts and nothing stood out of your knowledge for either side. Show me your knowledge Maniac...PLEASE thats what i have been waiting for the hole thread LOL, untill then i have to go by what you have posted so far, and that is really nothing except your opinions. When you make a Science Vs God Thread Bring some Knowledge with you Because it is a subject not to take Lightly.

[Maniac1]

lol maniac im not trying to win any battles here. As far as Knowledge goes on the matter im just looking at what you posted man..which you told me to do and it would show me what you knew about it. I read all your posts and nothing stood out of your knowledge for either side. Show me your knowledge Maniac...PLEASE thats what i have been waiting for the hole thread LOL, untill then i have to go by what you have posted so far, and that is really nothing except your opinions. When you make a Science Vs God Thread Bring some Knowledge with you Because it is a subject not to take Lightly.If you really did go back and read all my posts you would know that I have more knowledge when it comes to science. All I have been doing here is disproving the first question of this thread. Which was the student pointing out the fact that science and god are much alike. And that altough the professor didn't have anything to say, others did... Do you agree with this or don't? Have I been doing something else?

Which is just not the case. I have also been comparing opinions, which I told you I was doing a couple posts back. I didn't come in here saying I has all knowledge of both science and religion. Cause I know I don't, so why front? Your first post in this thread was a comment made about my 7 days opinion. Which you then corrected me because you have read the bible. Which is cool, this means you have more knowledge then me when it comes to that.

Still having facts from the bible is like having children explain to me that the earth is only 7k years old. Having knowledge about the bible, TO ME is nothing more than knowing what goes on in the minds of children. I not telling anyone to disbelieve in it, but alot of storys in the book are nothing more than bed time storys. Sorry I choose not to get all into something I have no interest in. I continue learning all I can about science, which is not only about astrology but all the observation, identification, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

You think I having nothing because im only expressing my opinion on the matter. So what?! Does that matter? We are not trying to teach anyone anything here, more like expressing our thoughts of the subject! You on the other hand see this thread as a class room. A thread that is trying to teach, which is far from the truth.

Next time you think you know what kind of knowledge someone has. You need to look at yourself and think if you have anything to come back with enough sense and facts that can back you up. And when I mean back you up, I mean that'll it'll make your opponent shut up! Make sense?

[YoTa_BoX]

Maniac i have said all i need to say. its pretty much Beating a dead horse from here on.

[Maniac1]

Glad you understand. Maybe next time we can have a discussion with less attitude. :)
Maniac i have said all i need to say. its pretty much Beating a dead horse from here on.

[YoTa_BoX]

lol what comes across as attitude is just my way of talking. Im blunt and say whats on my mind.

[YoTa_BoX]

ill say this, The more and more i read into science the more i feel that there is an intelligent design. Its just so amazing that everything had to be So perfect just for us to be in existence. Both sides are very fascinating to say the least. Just think about this..Your Brain Its a Big Pile of Mush in your skull..Yet it enables you to do everything you do on a daily basis. Look at your fingertips .. No ones fingertip is alike. Life is just amazing the more you Read about it and study into it. Does it answer why we are here no, so thats why i lean some what towards that there is a Higher power. Humans are about 75% water for crying out loud also consisting of carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen, oxygen phosphorus and calcium . Yet we have the ability to move mountains. If there is a god i think he gave us our brain for a reason..to figure things out. Do i buy into Heaven and hell not really. Things can be said on both sides of the spectrum like well if evolution says we come from monkies..well then where are part monkey ppl. there would have to be some variance of us some where. Ahh but we all just evolved...well then why are there so many diff kinds of Birds, Bats, Bees, dogs,cats exe... you would think there would be some diff kinds of ppl walking around. On the other hand you read the Bible and it says all the Fantastical stories about 1 man parting the ocean,God speaking and giving signs that he is really there. Why dont these things happen any more? To sum it up for me Science is amazing and i love it to death but like i said the more i look into science the more it makes me think there is a god.I think the heaven and hell things were made up by man so that man would Act good and not evil.

Yes this is One long ass run on paragraph LOL but i dont care.

[Vayda]

...Ahh but we all just evolved...well then why are there so many diff kinds of Birds, Bats, Bees, dogs,cats exe... you would think there would be some diff kinds of ppl walking around. ...

You're gonna love this one, but there WERE. Way back in the time of Homo Erectus, which was more or less our first ancestor that looked like us (hairless mostly, walkin on two legs) those dudes managed to cover the earth. We've found remains of them all over the world. Most ended their evolutionary chain there and died off. Some went to China, quit evolving, and were found later by their evolutionary decendants. Some went north into Europe and evolved into Neandertals.

Yes. Neandertals. They're NOT, as commonly thought, ancestors of humans. They're an entirely DIFFERENT SPECIES.

So the buncha Homo Erectus that stayed in Africa ate a buncha fish, grew a bigger brain, and eventually evolved into Homo Sapiens (aka, us.)...And they began to walk around, too. They made their way into Europe, and met up with the Neandertals.

Well, long story short, we won. We kicked their ASSES. We kicked their asses so hard we killed off their species.



As a side note, please make some sense with your capitalization. You caps on "birds and bees" but not on "God" or "I"....at least be consistant :screwy:


[edited: checked a source, removed a number i had wrong]

[YoTa_BoX]

You're gonna love this one, but there WERE. Way back in the time of Homo Erectus, which was more or less our first ancestor that looked like us (hairless mostly, walkin on two legs) those dudes managed to cover the earth. We've found remains of them all over the world. Most ended their evolutionary chain there and died off. Some went to China, quit evolving, and were found later by their evolutionary decendants. Some went north into Europe and evolved into Neandertals.

Yes. Neandertals. They're NOT, as commonly thought, ancestors of humans. They're an entirely DIFFERENT SPECIES.

So the buncha Homo Erectus that stayed in Africa ate a buncha fish, grew a bigger brain, and eventually evolved into Homo Sapiens (aka, us.)...And they began to walk around, too. They made their way into Europe, and met up with the Neanderthals.

Well, long story short, we won. We kicked their ASSES. We kicked their asses so hard we killed off their species.



As a side note, please make some sense with your capitalization. You caps on "birds and bees" but not on "God" or "I"....at least be consistant :screwy:


[edited: checked a source, removed a number i had wrong]

LOL ya for some reason i have this Thing with capitalizing Random things.
It helps me type for Some weird reason. So forgive me on that.

Alright i know of such things as Homo Erectus, Homo ergaster and such but that still does not explain why there are no other variances of Human.
You said we kicked Neanderthals asses and beat them as a species. Is there proof of said Extinguishing other than they just dont exist any more. And what of the Homo Erectus who did not eat fish and grow Bigger brains, Did they just die off? There would Have to be some Diff type of Human walking the earth SOME where but there isnt. Unless you believe in Big Foot ZOMG

[Vayda]

What other proof do you need of them extinguishing than them not being there anymore? That's kinda a fundamental concept of extinction. What proof do you have that a candle is no longer lit other than that the wick is no longer burning?

And actually, there are a couple theories on Neanderthals and why they died off. One is that they were "absorbed" into the human species, basically they interbred with us and eventually their own species died off. I think this is most likely after I work a long day. Most of my customers are neanderthals.

Anyway, that theory is far less substantiated than the idea that we were the better hunters, better gatherers, and better fighters, and eventually won.


I think you might be missing some of the concepts of evolution, and i dont blame you, as it's not widely taught. The idea of Speciation is a big part of what we're talking about here. Speciation is when one parent species (in this case, Homo Erectus) diverges for whatever reason into two or more. Darwin's theory was not actually evolution, but was natural selection. In his idea, the "survival of the fittest" as it is known, the best members of the species would be more likely to survive, breed, and pass down their traits to the next generation. This can eventually lead to evolution.

However, speciation is a bit different. It generally comes from a parent species being split....there's several forms, and i'd say check the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) on it if you really wanna learn. But take this simple example: Say there is a pond, and in the pond live a species of frogs. Some developer comes and builds a road through the middle of the pond. Frogs can't cross the road, so now their population is split in half. On one side of the road, the frogs have a lot more water, because that's where the stream enters the pond. These frogs need to become better swimmers, or they'll drown. On the other side, there is far less water, and the frogs need to be quicker hoppers to avoid land predators.

A million years passes.

Do you think these two frogs are going to be the same species anymore, after generations of learning to hop faster or hold their breath longer?

That's speciation.

So your question as to why we have no other current breeds of humans walking around? Well, think about it. Has a highway ever stopped you? Did an entire ocean stop Columbus? Did a continent stop Homo Erectus? No, absolutly not. Why should it? We're bigger, we're badass, we're awesome, we're not going to be stopped by a minor geographical inconvenience.

So the homo erectus that didn't eat fish? Yeah, they did die off. More likely our ancestors kicked their asses. We're simply the dominate species....we won :)




Check the Wiki on homo erectus for a list of their other decendants, too. It wasnt just neanderthals, they were just the most famous example.

[YoTa_BoX]

Well enough but its all theory as far as to what happend to Said Other Humanesc type things. You bring up natural selection, then explain to me why there are so many types of every other animal Yet Humans are the only Sapien type. I dont buy into allot of that because there are still all sorts of types of monkies around but just one of us. My brain is tarting to hurt now LOL

[Vayda]

Because each other species is naturally selected and adapted to best survive in the environment in which they live. Like the galapagos finches. They developed different beaks so they were able to feed at different times of year, from different plants, or even as much as a different spot on the same tree.

Why are there different types of monkeys? Different environments. Do silverbacks live in the same place as orangutans, or chimpanzees?

[David88vert]

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use scientific evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

Actually, you just showed that you ned to go back to high school and learn basic mathematics. You obviously do not understand mathematics or physics and definately do not have a degree in either. Probability is not the same as possibility.

Again, let's see.
Law of Conservation of Mass: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Formula Page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html)

Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. That's a LAW - not theory.
Formula Page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html)

Basic problem: Where did the matter come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? The same amount of matter needed to exist before the Big Bang. Something cannot come from nothing. That's a LAW - not theory.

If you believe in the Big Bang Hypothesis, you need to be able to explain this question in detail, or you are taking it on faith - nothing more. And that makes it the same as a religion - based on faith. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Now if you want to discuss the Big Bang Guess, you had better come prepared to discuss these points:
1) Singularity
2) Smoothness
3) Horizon
4) Flatness
5) Inflation Theory
6) Missing Mass
7) The Age of the Universe
8) Radiation from the "Decoupling"
9) The Big Bang Timeline
10) The Abundance of Light Elements
11) Red Shift Anomalies
12) Curved Space
13) The Decelerating Expansion of the Universe


The ratio of the number of electrons to protons must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 10_37 (10 to the 37th power); otherwise electromagnetic forces would have been stronger than gravitational forces and thus no galaxies, stars, or planets would have ever formed.

Is it possible that the universe and the physical laws could exist by evolution - YES. Is it probable - NO. The odds? 1 in 10_10000(10 to the 10000th power - much more unlikely than simple protons/electrons). Better odds would be that your car's engine would freeze solid instead of warm up - every single time you started it. Do you think that maybe there might be some sort of intelligence behind the universe's design, rather than random chance?


Additionally, if any 1 of the 47 things listed in the attachment went wrong, we would not be here. Some light reading for your high school educated brain.

Now, do you really want to try to have an educated discussion? Go back to playing your video games if you aren't prepared.

[The12lber]

That's a lot of text to basically state a single counterpoint. Trying to muddy the water much?

"BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER COME FROM?" - Why even bother addressing this? You can't argue this, its circular logic. If you want to argue that god is an explanation for the existence of the matter, you have to explain god's origin.

Basically, it is true that I have no explanation to offer you, the only logical assumption is that it always was. You can attempt to tell me that god did it but then you will have to explain the origination of god to me and logically how this fits into the framework of the creation of the universe. If god could have always existed, logically why could matter not have always existed?

I notice you didn't even touch what I said about evolution/the logical inconsistency of the conceptualization of Abrahamic god in comparison with reality.

Honestly, I am kind of sad for you. You see that reseach puts the odds vastly against a natural origin of the universe, so instead you decide it must have been something that there is NO EVIDENCE OF. Thank you very much for the overly pompous LOLOLOL GO BACK TO UR VIDEO GAMEZ comment though, douchebag.

[Vayda]

Hear, hear!! +1 :D

[japan4racing]

hahaha...these debates about magic....err i mean religion....are fun to read

[bu villain]

In response to David88vert's post on probability:

I hear a lot of people saying things like "The odds of all these factors coming together in such a perfect way are too remote for it to be by chance." This is not a logical argument for design for two main reasons:

1)
It is true that there are several universal constants which must be finely tuned in order for life as we know it to possible be able to exist. You can not start from an outcome and then claim it was too improbable to happen by chance. Take the lottery for example. Millions of people play, one person wins (sometimes noone wins). That winning person could say "the odds were 1 in a million I would win, it must have been divine intervention". Its true their odds of winning were incredibly minute and yet they won. Do you think that means God must have intervened?

2)
Because we are human, we believe human existence is more special than the existence of anything else. If there were a certian type of rock that could only be found in one tiny region, on one planet in the entire universe, humans wouldn't think twice because we do not think of rocks as special even if the chances of that particular rock existing are more rare than the chance of humans existing. Along these same lines, take poker. What are the odds you will get a A,K,Q,J,10 of spades? The odds are exactly the same as any other particular hand but yet we consider this a special hand and thus would be amazed if we were dealt it.

[YoTa_BoX]

take poker. What are the odds you will get a A,K,Q,J,10 of spades? The odds are exactly the same as any other particular hand but yet we consider this a special hand and thus would be amazed if we were dealt it.


I would think....who ever shuffled the deck is ****ty at it :)

[David88vert]

In response to David88vert's post on probability:

I hear a lot of people saying things like "The odds of all these factors coming together in such a perfect way are too remote for it to be by chance." This is not a logical argument for design for two main reasons:

1)
It is true that there are several universal constants which must be finely tuned in order for life as we know it to possible be able to exist. You can not start from an outcome and then claim it was too improbable to happen by chance. Take the lottery for example. Millions of people play, one person wins (sometimes noone wins). That winning person could say "the odds were 1 in a million I would win, it must have been divine intervention". Its true their odds of winning were incredibly minute and yet they won. Do you think that means God must have intervened?

2)
Because we are human, we believe human existence is more special than the existence of anything else. If there were a certian type of rock that could only be found in one tiny region, on one planet in the entire universe, humans wouldn't think twice because we do not think of rocks as special even if the chances of that particular rock existing are more rare than the chance of humans existing. Along these same lines, take poker. What are the odds you will get a A,K,Q,J,10 of spades? The odds are exactly the same as any other particular hand but yet we consider this a special hand and thus would be amazed if we were dealt it.

But can you win the lottery every day for the rest of your life? 1:1,000,000 odds are drastically better than 10_37th. Big difference. If ANY of the items listed went wrong, you wouldn't be typing. How many people do you know that have won every lottery that they have played?

Read about DNA sequencing. There is not way that could happen expressly by chance. Possible - Yes (anything is), Probably - No. There is a difference.

Of course, that does not mean that you can't believe it. Just know that you are taking it on faith. Again, nothing wrong with that. If everyone was the same, we would be robots. Again, you are completely entitled to your opinion and beliefs. I am not belittling that. Just be informed as to why you believe something.

[David88vert]

That's a lot of text to basically state a single counterpoint. Trying to muddy the water much?

"BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER COME FROM?" - Why even bother addressing this? You can't argue this, its circular logic. If you want to argue that god is an explanation for the existence of the matter, you have to explain god's origin.

Basically, it is true that I have no explanation to offer you, the only logical assumption is that it always was. You can attempt to tell me that god did it but then you will have to explain the origination of god to me and logically how this fits into the framework of the creation of the universe. If god could have always existed, logically why could matter not have always existed?

I notice you didn't even touch what I said about evolution/the logical inconsistency of the conceptualization of Abrahamic god in comparison with reality.

Honestly, I am kind of sad for you. You see that reseach puts the odds vastly against a natural origin of the universe, so instead you decide it must have been something that there is NO EVIDENCE OF. Thank you very much for the overly pompous LOLOLOL GO BACK TO UR VIDEO GAMEZ comment though, douchebag.

You can dish it out, but can't take it? :D Lighten up a little.

I am not arguing for an organized religion. Organized religion causes wars, power grabs, etc. God does not equal organized religion. Don't confuse the two. You can believe whatever you like however.

I am simply stating that the big bang is not mathematically probable. Your statement though that you do not have the answer, and that you are basically taking it on faith is a fair and legit argument. I have no problem with that. Now, why don't you research the topics that I listed and see if you still believe the same way when you have finished. I'm not asking you to believe me, just do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

As for matter always existing, if matter and its movements did not exist prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist before the Big Bang - matter and time came into being after the Big Bang. Their existence depends on each other. Based on your own scientists - Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking - these two conclusively proved in mathematical terms that the universe had had a beginning. Try reading, The Nature of Space and Time. Basically, your argument that matter always exists is refuted by well-known, pro-evolution scientists.

[Sledlude]

ahem... Occam's Razor (ie. the simplest explanation is the right one). According to this logic, the presence of an Abrahamic God is a bit too fantastical to be correct. There is no science proving His presence; only antiquated text (which has been numerous times altered throughout history).

I would love to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because like others have stated, for the Big Bang Theory to hold, you need to explain where matter came from. It might seem much easier to say "God did it!".

BUT think of it this way... look at the leaps and bounds our species has made in JUST the past 100 years when it comes to science. We went from theories of "spontaneous generation" to understanding and sequencing entire GENOMES of organisms. We can amplify and construct DNA sequences. We can predict and treat genetic disorders, as well as infectious ones. All this has progress has been made during a small fraction of our time on the planet- given another 100 years (if we are not out-competed or faced with some catastrophic event by then), just think of the advances we will make. Just because we don't know NOW doesn't mean we never will. We are working on it. That's the beauty of science: instead of just blindly accepting God as our reason for existence, we are slowly working toward understanding natural law behind it. It will take a long ass time, but I think it'll happen.

[Maniac1]

I'd like to thank everyone who has posted! This thread wasn't made to put anyone down or to make people question your beliefs. Their yours, you are the only one who can choose what you think is the truth. But it's always good to hear/read what other people have to say about the subject, thats why I made this thread.

We can all agree on, that we do not have the answers to everything.

Which is fine, we're only human. With time will come knowledge. Til then all we can really do is continue learning and asking ourselfs questions and answering them which ever way we can. Some may look to church for this, guidance from a higher power. Others will continue reading science and mathematical formulas and continue reading science books lol.

Once again, thanks. :) This thread has been awesome!

And if anyone feels like putting their two cents in here, feel free to. I'll be here seeing if I can give you the discussion you're looking for.

[NAG2I]

those who say that the bible has been altered over the years and years of language translations, you are actually incorrect. I'm not sure where these ideas come from but there false.
It's actually fact that 99.5% of the new testament agrees with the old text.Most of the differences are in spelling and word order.

[The12lber]

You can dish it out, but can't take it? :D Lighten up a little.

I am not arguing for an organized religion. Organized religion causes wars, power grabs, etc. God does not equal organized religion. Don't confuse the two. You can believe whatever you like however.

I was stating that the western conceptualization of god, when you use your logics and maths, cannot exist. I actually wasn't saying anything about organized religion, so I'm not sure how I'm confusing the two :rolleyes:. Abrahamic god != necessarily any specific church or even a church AT ALL, I was only stating that omnipotent, ominipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god cannot exist. If god isn't all of the above, is it really god (I suppose if he was all but omnibenevolent he'd still be god, just not a very good one)? That's all.

I am simply stating that the big bang is not mathematically probable. Your statement though that you do not have the answer, and that you are basically taking it on faith is a fair and legit argument. I have no problem with that. Now, why don't you research the topics that I listed and see if you still believe the same way when you have finished. I'm not asking you to believe me, just do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

As for matter always existing, if matter and its movements did not exist prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist before the Big Bang - matter and time came into being after the Big Bang. Their existence depends on each other. Based on your own scientists - Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking - these two conclusively proved in mathematical terms that the universe had had a beginning. Try reading, The Nature of Space and Time. Basically, your argument that matter always exists is refuted by well-known, pro-evolution scientists.

Stephen Hawking is as widely panned as he is lauded, perhaps he is right though, honestly I don't care to read Roger Penroses hardcover snoozefest. That being said, my statement was too nuanced. It would have been more accurate to state that you have the same logical problems explaining the origin of the universe with god or the supernatural as you do with incomplete science.

[Thighs]

holy ****... the argument has actually been resolved? WOW i think the planets must have aligned and the earth spun backwards for a day but we dont know it since we traveled back in time and slapped god in the face for creating science while evolving from monkeys and giving women big boobs and shaved vaginas.

[The12lber]

I would love to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because like others have stated, for the Big Bang Theory to hold, you need to explain where matter came from. It might seem much easier to say "God did it!".


Intelligent Design != Supernatural Creation. Both natural origin paired with intelligent design and supernatural creation paired with natural selection are logically intelligible statements. More over, intelligent design != supernatural design. Too many philosophical arguments center around supernatural origin & supernatural design, its very boring and demonstrates the stifling stupidity of people foolish enough to mix religion with logic and science. As is often stated, god lives in the margins of science, but these margins aren't evidence of anything but human imperfection.

Just a side note.

[bu villain]

But can you win the lottery every day for the rest of your life? 1:1,000,000 odds are drastically better than 10_37th. Big difference. If ANY of the items listed went wrong, you wouldn't be typing. How many people do you know that have won every lottery that they have played?

Read about DNA sequencing. There is not way that could happen expressly by chance. Possible - Yes (anything is), Probably - No. There is a difference.


I am not sure where you are getting the chance of life is 1 in 10^37 (or how one could possibly even develop odds for such an event at all) or why it is a lottery that must be played continuously (isn't once enough?) But even if that were the case, if there are 10^100000 universes out there, all with unique properties, then chances are quite good one of them will have life. I don't take it on faith that there are many other universes, I take it as a fact that I don't know. To assume there is only 1 is to claim you know for sure there are not others. The point is, probability is not a good argument for intelligent design.



Of course, that does not mean that you can't believe it. Just know that you are taking it on faith. Again, nothing wrong with that. If everyone was the same, we would be robots. Again, you are completely entitled to your opinion and beliefs. I am not belittling that. Just be informed as to why you believe something.

This part is very interesting. I take the position that there is not enough evidence to claim there is intelligent design based on the information I have read. You say, you are convinced by the evidence and I can not say they are wrong to come to that conclusion. I think we both agree on that. Both our positions are based on reason (even though they differ) and thus "faith" as used in the traditional sense is not really a good term to put on either of us.

Faith in the religious sense means believing one way regardless of any evidence. You will have to speak for yourself but my "faith" as you put it, is malleable. New evidence will change it, it will constantly question it, and I will never disregard information simply because it doesn't fit with my existing belief. If there is a question to which I don't know the asnwer, my response is "I don't know" not "It is God".

Finally, thanks for the concern but don't worry I am not sensitive. I don't mind my beliefs being challenged. It will only lead me closer to truth.

[David88vert]

Well put statement. I will clarify. God can neither be proven nor disproven through science. If you choose to believe in a god, that is based upon faith. The information listed earlier is only evalution of the Big Bang hypothesis, not God. The evidence for and against the Big Bang exists in this finite universe, and thus can be evaluated.
Basically, there is not enough evidence at this point in time to conclusively prove the Big Bang happened, and current evolutionary conclusions are drawn off of this concept.

My belief in God is based solely upon my faith. My observations of scientific information currently supports this. It is not to change your beliefs, only to give you info to draw your own conclusions.

[Maniac1]

We don't know what god is, but we know what he isn't. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[The12lber]

Calling lack of belief in god "faith" is a very misleading use of the word. Choosing not to believe in something for which there is no evidence isn't faith in the same sense believing in god is at all, especially since by choosing to believe in god you are not only choosing to believe in the supernatural but something very specific.

Take this very nondescript example to demonstrate the logic behind this. An event happens, did it happen without any outside intervention or did something unknown cause it to happen?

Its one thing to decide that it was something unknown or that the event happened without outside intervention without evidence. Its something else altogether to decide that something else did it and that something was bigfoot. This is EXACTLY what you have done when you choose to believe in god or in anything more specific than that. Supernatural creation or design don't have to be god. Why couldn't it have been space aliens? Or the cosmic design committee? The Hindu or Olympian Pantheon?

More over, those who have concluded there is no supernatural intervention in the natural world can rely on increasingly accurate science (hence, its not faith in any sense of the word) to explain the operations of this world in the abscence of the supernatural. And the thing is, no matter how advanced science becomes, it can never be advanced enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant being. Don't call not believing in something like that "faith", its ridiculous

[NAG2I]

well for a believer there is a little evidence. you make it sound like people who believe in a God just got there ideas from there imagination. most people who believe, have a source where they get there beliefs from. whether it be the bible or the koran or whatever.

[The12lber]

well for a believer there is a little evidence. you make it sound like people who believe in a God just got there ideas from there imagination. most people who believe, have a source where they get there beliefs from. whether it be the bible or the koran or whatever.
What you're talking about is only evidence of man's ability to create and disseminate mass media.

The Bible and the Koran are evidence of god's existence the same way rednecks with incoherent stories of anal probing on the history channel are evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials.

[NAG2I]

What you're talking about is only evidence of man's ability to create and disseminate mass media.

The Bible and the Koran are evidence of god's existence the same way rednecks with incoherent stories of anal probing on the history channel are evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials.

That might be the way you look at it and thats fine. but thats what makes people have different beliefs. different people choose to believe different things. i dont think one side of this will ever win over the whole other sides beliefs.

[The12lber]

That might be the way you look at it and thats fine. but thats what makes people have different beliefs. different people choose to believe different things. i dont think one side of this will ever win over the whole other sides beliefs.
Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

[NAG2I]

Uhh that's not really a way to "look at it", that's a fact. An unsourced story isn't evidence of anything supernatural. Its evidence of the existence of literature, bad literature with painfully one dimensional characters, unexciting stories with hackneyed settings and predictable outcomes. If you can explain to me how something being written about in one source with nothing to compliment it is evidence of anything but the author's lively imagination I welcome you to.

The bible not only contradicts itself (old/new testament!?) but the world we live in (see problem of evil in previous post). More over, "back in the day", church officials used to get together and decide which books would go in the bible and which would be ommited. Its all the word of god, but apparently some of the word of god wasn't worth putting in the bible.

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.

[The12lber]

alright to answer your questions or propositions saying that the bible is a bunch of made up stories from some guys a long time ago that liked writting.

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ."

This is plainly false. A specific and significant example. Jews in bondage in Egypt? NOWHERE BUT THE BIBLE. Moses? NOWHERE BUT THE BIBLE. There is no other evidence. NONE.


a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts,
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

This is undoubtedly true. Notice he refers to The Book of Acts only, though. The bible is full of individual books. One being true doesn't make the entire thing true by association, I'm not sure if you're trying to be misleading or you're that dumb.

"The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy."

ORLY? This one isn't even worth refuting. I can find plenty of quotes arguing that Nostradamus and Mayan priests were flawless fortune tellers as well.

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

The New Testament is only part of the bible. The New Testament is indeed more or less historically accurate. The New Testament is also, more or less, far less fantastic in its storytelling than the Old.

it really takes very little research to find that the bible we read today is almost identical to the ancient texts. im not sure where you get the fact that church officials pick and chose which books would be in the bible but i wouldn't mind seeing who wrote that.

This is true. Obviously, you didn't understand what I said. "Back in the day", meant to insinuate the somewhat distant past, there were indeed meetings during which the contents of The New Testament was decided upon. It will only take, in your words "very little research" to verify this.

Past iterations of The New Testament are indeed similar to the current one. Not all "Books" by theological writers were added to the bible, however.



You haven't really demonstrated anything here. Not only is this a collection of falsehoods and half truths, it also fails in respects to demonstrating how literature can be explicit evidence of the existence of the supernatural. If I were you I'd watch Penn & Teller's BS episode on The Bible's historical accuracy if you want further education.

[Maniac1]

If I were you I'd watch Penn & Teller's BS episode on The Bible's historical accuracy if you want further education.LOL! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7204382651834238754&q=Penn+and+teller&total=1053&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[NAG2I]

this has some good info in it
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html
the whole website to
just has more info about how the bible is truth, explaining it much better then i can.
i mean i dont know what exactly you believe,and thats fine i dont need to know its none of my business if you dont want it to be.
i can also accept the fact that there are reasons you dont accept the same things i believe.
all i can say for myself is that i believe in the things i believe 100% without a shadow of a doubt.
i just hope that everyone else can say the same about themselves in time
might take a while to settle upon something but i hope it happens for everyone
whatever it may be.

[Maniac1]

i mean i dont know what exactly you believe,and thats fine i dont need to know its none of my business if you dont want it to be.
i can also accept the fact that there are reasons you dont accept the same things i believe.No one here is trying to force any to change their beliefs. Me personally, I just want to know why others believe something I don't. I can argue on events in the bible that supposedly took place, because some of the storys in it are totally impossible. And there are no facts to prove them ever happening.

[NAG2I]

No one here is trying to force any to change their beliefs. Me personally, I just want to know why others believe something I don't. I can argue on events in the bible that supposedly took place, because some of the storys in it are totally impossible. And there are no facts to prove them ever happening.

oh i understand what your saying completely. I'm not trying to change peoples beliefs either just try and give a small representation as to why i believe what i do. and its hard to do online for me.

[The12lber]

this has some good info in it
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html


You know websites like this are full of ****, right? This reminds me of the Intelligent Design museum where they teach kids man coexisted with dinosaurs. Good evidence comes from websites of reputable secular educational insitutions, documentary type programming with reputable expert testimony or even wikipedia.

No offense to you sir, but I don't know how dumb you have to be to believe that the archaelogical record supports everything in the Old/New Testament. Its one thing to believe in god, believing man's fantastic stories is another.

The Penn/Teller thing synopsizes things pretty well. They use actual reputable sources, its short and to the point. Its not my fault if you don't watch it.

[NAG2I]

You know websites like this are full of ****, right? This reminds me of the Intelligent Design museum where they teach kids man coexisted with dinosaurs. Good evidence comes from websites of reputable secular educational insitutions, documentary type programming with reputable expert testimony or even wikipedia.

No offense to you sir, but I don't know how dumb you have to be to believe that the archaelogical record supports everything in the Old/New Testament. Its one thing to believe in god, believing man's fantastic stories is another.

The Penn/Teller thing synopsizes things pretty well. They use actual reputable sources, its short and to the point. Its not my fault if you don't watch it.

now i didnt say here is this website, i believe everything on it and it is what i live by. no i think some of the things he talks about are interesting. and i checked out his sources for the things i read.

[The12lber]

No, what you said was




http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html
the whole website to just has more info about how the bible is truth, explaining it much better .

which, in the context of this conversation, is pretty much the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

The synopsis: no reputable scholar believes that all of the bible is hisotorically accurate, most feel that it provides a limited amount of generally accurate historical information. And while the archaelogical record it some cases confirms the general historical accuracy of the bible, it also widely contradicts it and or cannot confirm the historiocity of the bible (and not having explicit disproof of something is not evidence of the item in question's truth, the study of history doesn't work that way).

The best part is, even if it was more or less entirely historically accurate, its still not proof of anything supernatural. Most of Rome's recorded history is true, but if I had to guess Romulus and Remus never nursed from a she-wolf and Gaius Julius Caesar wasn't really a descendant of Venus.

[CRXchic19]

we all came in the same way, and we are all exiting the same way, whatever you chose to believe in the process is not going to help the end result.

think of it the way you will, weather you believe there is an afterlife, or you dont. Obviously if just one religion is correct, then there surely is a hell of a lot of people who are wrong, it doesnt change the origin of where we came from though.

throughout history religion has been used to sugar coat excuses for war and greed. i see no difference now. man has yet to learn from his mistakes. i know what i believe, what i dont, and what i take into consideration. i would never bash anyone for thier beliefs or try to make them agree with my own...

i think the bible is pretty much a composite towards the lines of Aesop's fables, none of it REALLY happened, but at the end it leaves you with a bunch of morals and certain "guidelines" you are expected to live by...

but i still have a problem with trying to justify that there is a big guy looking down on us at all times, watching our every move and thought, telling us we are horrible horrible people, need to repent, and that we will burn in hell in the afterlife if we dont listen to what the church/bible tell us to do..... but remember kids.... HE LOVES YOU!!!

...just my :2cents:

[bu villain]

Well put statement. I will clarify. God can neither be proven nor disproven through science. If you choose to believe in a god, that is based upon faith. The information listed earlier is only evalution of the Big Bang hypothesis, not God. The evidence for and against the Big Bang exists in this finite universe, and thus can be evaluated.
Basically, there is not enough evidence at this point in time to conclusively prove the Big Bang happened, and current evolutionary conclusions are drawn off of this concept.

My belief in God is based solely upon my faith. My observations of scientific information currently supports this. It is not to change your beliefs, only to give you info to draw your own conclusions.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. You're certainly right, there is no way science (or anything else for that matter) can 100% prove or disprove God (the most abstract of all concepts).

Im interested in your take on this statement:
The basic difference between atheists (or at least agnostics) and believers is that athiest do not assume anything, it must be proven, believers assume there is a God until proven otherwise.

Also, why do you choose to make the assumption that there is a God (defined loosely as an all knowing, all powerful, infinite entity who created our universe) as opposed to our universe being created by a group of super intelligent alien scientists? Why is an entity that is at the most extreme end of knowledge, power, and time more believable than an a group of entities with a great amount of knowledge, power, and time (though at least slightly less than infinite)?

Obviously I would not advocate believing in either but I would like to hear your views.

[man]

It takes an awfully closed mind to fully support either God or Science and completely reject the other.

[The12lber]

It takes an awfully closed mind to fully support either God or Science and completely reject the other.

It takes an awfully stupid person to decide that if there was a supernatural origin to the universe that it was god.

As a side note, I don't really know any believers who reject science outright- they only reject the parts that they feel contradict their faith.

[man]

It takes an awfully stupid person to decide that if there was a supernatural origin to the universe that it was god.

What is god?

[yaggrauo]

its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and mighty. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence.

What is god?

[man]

its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and might. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence.

And you got this from which credible source?

[yaggrauo]

there is no other explanation for it, that is the truth! 'it' is nothing more than an image. or are you going to sit here and tell me all of 'its' features and show me evidence of him existing? i think not.

And you got this from which credible source?

[man]

there is no other explanation for it, that is the truth! 'it' is nothing more than an image. or are you going to sit here and tell me all of 'its' features and show me evidence of him existing? i think not.

Ahhhh... so you are Mr. Answerman am I correct? So you have no sources? No proof to back your statements? I should just take your word because you are confident? I find it funny how easy it is to convince people one way or the other.

[yaggrauo]

no you are incorrect, smartguy. no one convinced me to think this way, i made my own conclusion. its not about having sources, do you have any to prove me wrong? i would paypal you 20 bucks if you can find me a source to disprove my thought on the subject.

Ahhhh... so you are Mr. Answerman am I correct? So you have no sources? No proof to back your statements? I should just take your word because you are confident? I find it funny how easy it is to convince people one way or the other.

[man]

no you are incorrect, smartguy. no one convinced me to think this way, i made my own conclusion. its not about having sources, do you have any to prove me wrong? i would paypal you 20 bucks if you can find me a source to disprove my thought on the subject.

Don't try to turn this around. You stated "its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and mighty. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence."

I asked for your source of this definition. But then again you apparently came up with this all by yourself, no sources? That's pretty brave. You must be the most intelligent person in history if your brain can come up with conclusions like that on its own.

Should I alert the presses now or would you like to wait a little while to give a more official statement?

[yaggrauo]

haha, wow! you asked 'what is god'. i gave you the only answer anyone will be able to give, go to a church and ask, see what they tell you. no one is going to sit here and successfully explain what it is. because there has never been any actual evidence! what more do you want?! someone posted this in this thread, "we don't know what god is, but we know what he isn't." which is true, but we also know what religion people see it as, and that is an image of the creator of all.


Don't try to turn this around. You stated "its nothing more than a thought, a figure people portray as the all and mighty. there is no evidence of 'it' every existing but people choose to believe in it because it makes them feel happy or safe while in its presence."

I asked for your source of this definition. But then again you apparently came up with this all by yourself, no sources? That's pretty brave. You must be the most intelligent person in history if your brain can come up with conclusions like that on its own.

Should I alert the presses now or would you like to wait a little while to give a more official statement?

[man]

haha, wow! you asked 'what is god'. i gave you the only answer anyone will be able to give, go to a church and ask, see what they tell you. no one is going to sit here and successfully explain what it is. because there has never been any actual evidence! what more do you want?! someone posted this in this thread, "we don't know what god is, but we know what he isn't." which is true, but we also know what religion people see it as, and that is an image of the creator of all.

:goodjob:

That's all I wanted. Especially the bold part.

[TheChosenOne]

fcman: How can you badger this man about his "definition" of god. Your really just chasing your tail.

The true argument is over whether or not he exist. I know people like he and I are fighting an up hill battle, being that we reside in the "bible belt", but the truth is inevitable.

Assuming that we are talking about the Christian God, if he were truley the King ruler of all, then why, 2000 years after "his only begotten son" roamed the Earth and preached the word, does less than half the world believe in him?

Would a truley omnipitent and loving God let the majority of his children live in ignorance?

Slavery? Holocaust? Genocide?

I ask you whole-heartedly, where is your "God"?

[man]

fcman: How can you badger this man about his "definition" of god. Your really just chasing your tail.

In what way? I was merely asking him how he could be so sure of his definition when defining the word "god" is one of the largest controversies of the intellectual community.


The true argument is over whether or not he exist. I know people like he and I are fighting an up hill battle, being that we reside in the "bible belt", but the truth is inevitable.

The truth may be inevitable but it is also the most evasive "truth" in history.


Assuming that we are talking about the Christian God, if he were truley the King ruler of all, then why, 2000 years after "his only begotten son" roamed the Earth and preached the word, does less than half the world believe in him?

I am not talking of any specific "God".


Would a truley omnipitent and loving God let the majority of his children live in ignorance?

Slavery? Holocaust? Genocide?

Omnipotence is an absurd idea.


I ask you whole-heartedly, where is your "God"?

I associate myself with no "god". I do applaud the ambiguity of the question, how am I supposed to answer such an obscure question?

[yaggrauo]

everyone has a different thought or defintion of what is "god." he may not want to post up what he thinks, because he hasn't encountered any evidence of him existing or not existing. so he would rather just stay neutral. i on the other hand choose to believe in what i said. becaus at the end of the day all you really have going for you are your own thoughts and beliefs.


fcman: How can you badger this man about his "definition" of god. Your really just chasing your tail.

[David88vert]

I think we are pretty much in agreement. You're certainly right, there is no way science (or anything else for that matter) can 100% prove or disprove God (the most abstract of all concepts).

Im interested in your take on this statement:
The basic difference between atheists (or at least agnostics) and believers is that athiest do not assume anything, it must be proven, believers assume there is a God until proven otherwise.

Also, why do you choose to make the assumption that there is a God (defined loosely as an all knowing, all powerful, infinite entity who created our universe) as opposed to our universe being created by a group of super intelligent alien scientists? Why is an entity that is at the most extreme end of knowledge, power, and time more believable than an a group of entities with a great amount of knowledge, power, and time (though at least slightly less than infinite)?

Obviously I would not advocate believing in either but I would like to hear your views.

The Raelians do believe aliens are the foundation for our existence, as other groups have in the past. It comes down to personal choice, you research all of the information that you can assimilate and draw logical conclusions. My conclusion is that there is a God, and he created us in His image.
A belief that aliens created us would not explain the origins of the universe. A finite being car not exist indefinitely. Again, matter would have to be created from nothing. Scientific laws do not support this hypothesis.

I have studied the origins of the universe for many years and have found that my faith is supported by known scientific laws and facts. I have also found that the Big Bang hypothesis and Evolution are not physically possible as currently presented by the majority of scientists that propose it's existence. Maybe in a few years they will revise their positions and it will need to be reevaluated. I am not condemning them or attacking them, I just do not find their explanations of the universe plausible based upon know scientific facts and laws.

[man]

everyone has a different thought or defintion of what is "god." he may not want to post up what he thinks, because he hasn't encountered any evidence of him existing or not existing. so he would rather just stay neutral. i on the other hand choose to believe in what i said. becaus at the end of the day all you really have going for you are your own thoughts and beliefs.

I believe it is better to leave the unknown as it is rather than settle for a guess. It is the unknown which motivates us. Perhaps my personal definition of a "god" is simply uncertainty and "faith" is simply hope. Those that have faith in a "god" start everyday with a positive outlook on uncertainty, whereas the "godless" perhaps take uncertainty in a negative light. Then there are people like me who look at uncertainty as a fork in the road, producing results neither desirable nor undesirable.

[David88vert]

Calling lack of belief in god "faith" is a very misleading use of the word. Choosing not to believe in something for which there is no evidence isn't faith in the same sense believing in god is at all, especially since by choosing to believe in god you are not only choosing to believe in the supernatural but something very specific.

Take this very nondescript example to demonstrate the logic behind this. An event happens, did it happen without any outside intervention or did something unknown cause it to happen?

Its one thing to decide that it was something unknown or that the event happened without outside intervention without evidence. Its something else altogether to decide that something else did it and that something was bigfoot. This is EXACTLY what you have done when you choose to believe in god or in anything more specific than that. Supernatural creation or design don't have to be god. Why couldn't it have been space aliens? Or the cosmic design committee? The Hindu or Olympian Pantheon?

More over, those who have concluded there is no supernatural intervention in the natural world can rely on increasingly accurate science (hence, its not faith in any sense of the word) to explain the operations of this world in the abscence of the supernatural. And the thing is, no matter how advanced science becomes, it can never be advanced enough to disprove the existence of a transcendant being. Don't call not believing in something like that "faith", its ridiculous

Trusting in men to tell you what to believe takes faith. Who decides who is credible and who is not? If you believe in evolution based on "credible scientists", you are having faith in their words and books. There is no difference in believing in their books or the Bible, Koran, etc. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that - those are your beliefs.

I see you repeatedly confusing science and philosophy. You do realize that they are two different subjects, correct?

[NAG2I]

LOL! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7204382651834238754&q=Penn+and+teller&total=1053&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

about this video
if we followed all the rules of the old testament today. it would be a crazy world.
christianity itself wasn't even created until after the old testament. not to say that nothing in the old testament is correct.

[man]

about this video
if we followed all the rules of the old testament today. it would be a crazy world.
christianity itself wasn't even created until after the old testament. not to say that nothing in the old testament is correct.

Plus the video is merely stating how society doesn't follow the bible. Not how the bible is contradictory.

[David88vert]

Would a truley omnipitent and loving God let the majority of his children live in ignorance?

Yes. You make your own decisions and choices. He doesn't want a bunch of robots, rather people must freely choose to worship Him. Your parents had to let you learn to make your own choices. You were instructed not to do some things when you were younger, and yet you chose to do them anyway, and then you had to pay the consequences. Does that mean they did not love you?


I ask you whole-heartedly, where is your "God"?

The answer is simple. He is in the same place he has always been. Right here. You choose whether or not you wish to follow His rules. You reap the rewards and consequences for your actions. Did your parent leave you just because you made a mistake? Or was the door open if you chose to come home?

This is such a simple concept, even little children understand it. If you do not understand it, it is because you are unwilling to accept it.

However, even if you understand it, it does not mean that you have to believe in God, or accept that Jesus does for your sins, etc, etc, etc...
That is a different concept. I am not delving into that question in this particular post.

[The12lber]

Plus the video is merely stating how society doesn't follow the bible. Not how the bible is contradictory.

You obviously have a double digit IQ for coming to this conclusion if you watched this video the whole way through.

[David88vert]

Alright, back to scientific basics. Enough with philosophy (for me) - we could argue that forever without going anywhere.

Anyone think they can prove the Big Bang (at least give a reasonable argument for it)? Want to start with basic scientific laws? The last time I posed this question, no one wanted to approach it. I will not bash on anyone, just have an intelligent debate on scientific facts, laws, and observations.

[man]

You obviously have a double digit IQ for coming to this conclusion if you watched this video the whole way through.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Does GA tech accept people with double digit IQs? Damn I must have slipped under their radar because it sure as hell wasn't my grades that produced that acceptance letter.

[man]

Alright, back to scientific basics. Enough with philosophy (for me) - we could argue that forever without going anywhere.

Anyone think they can prove the Big Bang (at least give a reasonable argument for it)? Want to start with basic scientific laws? The last time I posed this question, no one wanted to approach it. I will not bash on anyone, just have an intelligent debate on scientific facts, laws, and observations.

I would love to explain some of the physics behind it, if you are still online. I have read a couple Steven Hawkings books as well as done a bit of my own research on the subject (during my Physics course at GT). The origin of the universe and the complexities of time amaze me.

[The12lber]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Does GA tech accept people with double digit IQs? Damn I must have slipped under their radar because it .sure as hell wasn't my grades that produced that acceptance letter
Hahahaha, does GT have an IQ field to fill out on the application? More over, they state the purpose of the episode within the first two minutes. You didn't watch the whole thing obviously.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1074819989721659487&q=penn+and+teller+bull****+bible&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[yaggrauo]

must see video lol. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7946689704709025125&q=The+Atheist+Delusion&total=721&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[yaggrauo]

Atheist- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9067274864884092981&q=atheist&total=26230&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Maniac1]

I would love to explain some of the physics behind it, if you are still online. I have read a couple Steven Hawkings books as well as done a bit of my own research on the subject (during my Physics course at GT). The origin of the universe and the complexities of time amaze me.This is the definition of the big bang. " A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."

There really isn't anything else to explain other then the fact of the laws of science, which David88vert already went over... I sometimes wonder how matter could have gotten to a size where there is infinite mass and matter. The universe has alot of secrets that we just don't know yet. Explaining how gamma bursts, unknown planets, black holes, ect ect are made. I personally would rather waste my time and energy trying to learn all I can about this than fiction storys found in the bible.

[Maniac1]

about this video
if we followed all the rules of the old testament today. it would be a crazy world.
christianity itself wasn't even created until after the old testament. not to say that nothing in the old testament is correct.Exactly! So what did people do after the new testament was made? Changed it up! If christianity was created after the old testament, then that means they're not going by what the original god said, but going by what the new one wants. Hmm this just doesn't make sense...

[man]

You didn't watch the whole thing obviously.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1074819989721659487&q=penn+and+teller+bull****+bible&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Maybe it's because that wasn't the video posted earlier. See how important context is...


Hahahaha, does GT have an IQ field to fill out on the application?

You apparently think you're much smarter than you actually are. GT does in fact have an IQ field, also known as SAT scores from which IQ is a mathematical derivative. You need to sit back, open your ears, and close your mouth.

[man]

This is the definition of the big bang. " A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."

There really isn't anything else to explain other then the fact of the laws of science, which David88vert already went over... I sometimes wonder how matter could have gotten to a size where there is infinite mass and matter. The universe has alot of secrets that we just don't know yet. Explaining how gamma bursts, unknown planets, black holes, ect ect are made. I personally would rather waste my time and energy trying to learn all I can about this than fiction storys found in the bible.

When I said physics I meant a strong mathematical theory supporting the big bang, not a wiki definition aimed at the simple minded. Actually scratch that, I just figured out how to explain it simply. Maniac, I don't know how proficient you are in mathematics but if you're pretty good, you might want to consider a college physics or astronomy course. If your math is not spectacular, philosophy is a great alternative. Really gets you thinking about things in a new way. I'm thinking about minoring in philosophy now that I've already experienced the physics side of things.

[The12lber]

Maybe it's because that wasn't the video posted earlier. See how important context is...



You apparently think you're much smarter than you actually are. GT does in fact have an IQ field, also known as SAT scores from which IQ is a mathematical derivative. You need to sit back, open your ears, and close your mouth.
Wow, you are INSANELY stupid. Not only is the SAT NOT A DETERMINANT OF IQ. If you've ever taken an IQ test, it differs dramatically in important areas from the SAT. In academia, the idea of the two sharing an absolute and direct relationship is about as widely accepted as James Bond in Harlem. There are numerous criticisms of why the SAT is a bad test of anything to begin with. Go search for criticisms of SAT on Google, or Wiki SAT.

More over, I'd like to add that if you feel comfortable with the notion that SAT and IQ share a direct and absolute relationship, you're also comfortable with the notion that as a whole certain racial groups have lower IQs than their asian and white bretheren because these groups have lower SAT scores on average (and therefore their race is inherently less intelligent). So I hope you're cool with that.



In other news, I'm still in disbelief you're that dumb that you couldn't use your logic to figure this out for yourself.

[The12lber]

Maybe it's because that wasn't the video posted earlier. See how important context is...


I apologize, I didn't know that the poster was too incompetent to post the entire episode but instead some butchered one minute version of it. You on the other hand probably should have been able to figure out it was an over edited abomination so I don't feel too guilty.

[bu villain]

Alright, back to scientific basics. Enough with philosophy (for me) - we could argue that forever without going anywhere.

Anyone think they can prove the Big Bang (at least give a reasonable argument for it)? Want to start with basic scientific laws? The last time I posed this question, no one wanted to approach it. I will not bash on anyone, just have an intelligent debate on scientific facts, laws, and observations.

I've never heard anyone say they can "prove" the Big Bang. It is usually refered to as the best theory we have but never scientific fact. You can easily point to lots of evidence such as redshift, proportion of elements, etc but they are not definitive. Since I do not feel it can be proven 100% at this time, i would rather discuss the items you feel are inconsistent with the theory.

[bu villain]

Wow, most of the last few pages are filled with personal attacks and almost nothing on topic. I love IA!

[NAG2I]

Exactly! So what did people do after the new testament was made? Changed it up! If christianity was created after the old testament, then that means they're not going by what the original god said, but going by what the new one wants. Hmm this just doesn't make sense...

no this is very untrue. you must not know what changed from the new and old testament and why things were different.
jesus dying changed a lot of things. doesn't mean God changed.

[man]

Wow, you are INSANELY stupid. Not only is the SAT NOT A DETERMINANT OF IQ. If you've ever taken an IQ test, it differs dramatically in important areas from the SAT. In academia, the idea of the two sharing an absolute and direct relationship is about as widely accepted as James Bond in Harlem. There are numerous criticisms of why the SAT is a bad test of anything to begin with. Go search for criticisms of SAT on Google, or Wiki SAT.

More over, I'd like to add that if you feel comfortable with the notion that SAT and IQ share a direct and absolute relationship, you're also comfortable with the notion that as a whole certain racial groups have lower IQs than their asian and white bretheren because these groups have lower SAT scores on average (and therefore their race is inherently less intelligent). So I hope you're cool with that.



In other news, I'm still in disbelief you're that dumb that you couldn't use your logic to figure this out for yourself.

Where did I say SAT and IQ are absolute and direct relatives? I said derivative. Meaning you can derive and approximate IQ level based on a person's SAT score. If you don't believe that they are related in any way you may want to give up on life. As for whether I've taken an IQ test, first one was in 5th grade, led to an SAT the summer after which then put me in Calculus at UCF, when I was 14.
As for whether or not some races have higher IQs than others, statistically speaking yes. But we all know the problem with statistics. Why wouldn't I be cool with that?
As for logic, you seem to be the one that's lacking.

But let's try to get back on topic. I'm done arguing with high schoolers.

[man]

I've never heard anyone say they can "prove" the Big Bang. It is usually refered to as the best theory we have but never scientific fact. You can easily point to lots of evidence such as redshift, proportion of elements, etc but they are not definitive. Since I do not feel it can be proven 100% at this time, i would rather discuss the items you feel are inconsistent with the theory.

It never will be proven, nothing in the past without a record can be. They may prove the theories to be possible physically, but that doesn't answer anything.

[The12lber]

Where did I say SAT and IQ are absolute and direct relatives? I said derivative. Meaning you can derive and approximate IQ level based on a person's SAT score. If you don't believe that they are related in any way you may want to give up on life.
As for whether or not some races have higher IQs than others, statistically speaking yes. But we all know the problem with statistics. Why wouldn't I be cool with that?
As for logic, you seem to be the one that's lacking.

But let's try to get back on topic. I'm done arguing with high schoolers.

There is, but if it isn't an absolute and direct relationship why even reference it in relation to your IQ?

And yes, that's the point. There are problems with statistics. So don't build arguments around them alone. That is all.

[Maniac1]

When I said physics I meant a strong mathematical theory supporting the big bang, not a wiki definition aimed at the simple minded. Actually scratch that, I just figured out how to explain it simply. Maniac, I don't know how proficient you are in mathematics but if you're pretty good, you might want to consider a college physics or astronomy course. If your math is not spectacular, philosophy is a great alternative. Really gets you thinking about things in a new way. I'm thinking about minoring in philosophy now that I've already experienced the physics side of things.Sounds like you're trying to call me, dumb! LOL

Seriously though, getting too deep into the big bang would only cause more confusion... because the majority of the people don't know what physics is and would much rather go about it in a different way. I know for me, I could take it there, but it'll get to a point where talking about it isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

So why not explain it in away everyone could understand it?

As for my ups and downs. Lol im not all the good when it comes to mathematics. Back in school I was only good in science, social studies, and other extra classes like gym, art, and computer classes. Lol I really want to gain more knowledge by trying new things, but my first priority right now is finding a job!

[Maniac1]

no this is very untrue. you must not know what changed from the new and old testament and why things were different.
jesus dying changed a lot of things. doesn't mean God changed.Actually I don't know, care to post up what did change? Maybe then I could get a better picture of the old/new bible.

Also, tell me what changed after jesus got crucified. Because from what I know, things changed for the good, right? Do you know of any actual evidence of jesus christ ever existing? Or are you just following what the bible tells you?

[The12lber]

Based on everything you've said so far, lets come back to this.



You apparently think you're much smarter than you actually are. GT does in fact have an IQ field, also known as SAT scores from which IQ is a mathematical derivative. You need to sit back, open your ears, and close your mouth.

Obviously, there's a relationship. But there are tens of other factors that will determine your SAT score.

Your statement was that SAT scores and IQ scores are indeed directly and absolutely related.

Your statement is the logical equavilent of saying "GT does in fact have a weight field, also known as height". The two are related, obviously. A tall person is likely to weigh more than a short person. But who knows how much each one eats, works out, or what health issues they have?

Except if height and weight in this statement share the same relationship as in yours, they'd be the same thing... they are obviously not.

I hope that makes it easier for you to understand what this discussion stems from and why you are wrong, smart guy. That is all.

[man]

There is, but if it isn't an absolute and direct relationship why even reference it in relation to your IQ?

It's what we like to call using logic. x+3=5 vs. 2=2
See the difference. We use proofs and logic to determine relationships. A direct relationship only requires your senses.


And yes, that's the point. There are problems with statistics. So don't build arguments around them alone. That is all.

I don't believe I ever brought statistics into this. I think you might be confusing logic with statistics.

BTW, you should try laying off the personal attacks. It might result in you being taken seriously.

[TheChosenOne]

I just realized that the tone is this thread is way to intense for a car forum.

Listen, we may not all have the same religious beliefs, but I know onw thing we ALL have in common... our passion for out automobiles.

Jesus, Muhammed, God, Alah,...Science... yeah, it's important, but lets not let these differences fortify and type or form religious biggotry. :D

Com'mon... group hug! (no homo);)

One thing remains true. We all want to know the answer to life. If everyone was trying to get somewhere by taking the same path, if they got lost, there would be no alternative and we would all be up shiit creek. Maybe there is a reason that humans are gifted with our curious intellect... the more ways we use to try and find the key, the more likely we are to actually find it.

[NAG2I]

Actually I don't know, care to post up what did change? Maybe then I could get a better picture of the old/new bible.

Also, tell me what changed after jesus got crucified. Because from what I know, things changed for the good, right? Do you know of any actual evidence of jesus christ ever existing? Or are you just following what the bible tells you?

ill try my best but those are some pretty big questions.
in the old testament for people to be forgiven of there sins they had to do sacrifices to be forgiven. there were different sacrifices for different sins, mostly it was sacrificing animals. and jesus being crucified was the ultimate sacrifice so people wouldn't have to have there own sacrifice every-time they sin. and yes there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence. many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.

[Maniac1]

ill try my best but those are some pretty big questions.
in the old testament for people to be forgiven of there sins they had to do sacrifices to be forgiven. there were different sacrifices for different sins, mostly it was sacrificing animals. and jesus being crucified was the ultimate sacrifice so people wouldn't have to have there own sacrifice every-time they sin. and yes there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence. many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.Lol interesting...

[The12lber]

It's what we like to call using logic. x+3=5 vs. 2=2
See the difference. We use proofs and logic to determine relationships. A direct relationship only requires your senses.

Except what you were trying to state was more like (variable IQ) + 3 = SAT score...

When in reality its more like variable IQ + what level of math you took + what level of english you took + how much you read on your off time + whether or not you paid attention in class + how competent your teacher was + what the curriculum was like + how much you prepared for your SAT + etc = your SAT score.

What you were trying to state was that IQ was the ONLY variable.


I don't believe I ever brought statistics into this. I think you might be confusing logic with statistics.

IQ and SAT scores are both statistics, sir.





As a side note, both equations were examples of items that share a direct and absolute (!= absolute value btw, absolute also means complete, unwavering, entirely consistent, etc) relationship. You might as well have written "2=2 vs 2=2, see the difference?" seeing as how there was only one variable. You couldn't even get that right, so don't insult my logic.

The reality is too complex for a math problem. What you're doing is only approximating IQ, which you yourself said. Let substitute a connotative synonym for "approximating", guess, in its place.

You can use math to guess, with varying degrees of accuracy, what someone's IQ is. Its that simple. Its not a reliable method, so calling the SAT field the "IQ field" is a plainly false.

Basically, you were wrong and you were a condescending ******* whilst being wrong.

[The12lber]

many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.

Only one historical writer I know of living in his time, Tacitus, wrote about him. That being said, Tacitus never actually met Jesus or anything of that sort. He just mentioned that some Jew named Jesus was causing trouble in Israel.

Tacitus knew that Jesus existed in the same sense Winston Smith knew Goldstein existed, basically. When you skim over archaelogical evidence you'll actually find that Israel was plagued by would be Messiahs at the time, and that the only thing that differentiates Christ from these others is he lucked out with a religion and the rest are doomed to obscurity.

[man]

As a side note, both equations were examples of items that share a direct and absolute (!= absolute value btw, absolute also means complete, unwavering, entirely consistent, etc) relationship. You might as well have written "2=2 vs 2=2, see the difference?" seeing as how there was only one variable. You couldn't even get that right, so don't insult my logic.

The reality is too complex for a math problem. What you're doing is only approximating IQ, which you yourself said. Let substitute a connotative synonym for "approximating", guess, in its place.

You can use math to guess, with varying degrees of accuracy, what someone's IQ is. Its that simple. Its not a reliable method, so calling the SAT field the "IQ field" is a plainly false.

Basically, you were wrong and you were a condescending ******* whilst being wrong.

LOL Alright kiddie. Now I'm being condescending. This is worthless. In no way will you be able to prove your intelligence or mine. This is the internet. YOU were the one who started by being condescending, even though you have nothing to show other than moronic thoughts. YOU are the one who clearly doesn't understand logic. I merely put the simple equation to show the difference between that which is blatantly obvious and that which requires logic (btw you're a moron if you don't think x+3=5 requires logic) You clearly don't understand what is going on here and are trying to bring me down to your level. Your demeanor alone confirms any doubts that you are a weak individual. Calling people out over the internet. Someone states a fact that you think is wrong, tell them, don't act like a buffoon.

Get back on topic.

[David88vert]

I've never heard anyone say they can "prove" the Big Bang. It is usually refered to as the best theory we have but never scientific fact. You can easily point to lots of evidence such as redshift, proportion of elements, etc but they are not definitive. Since I do not feel it can be proven 100% at this time, i would rather discuss the items you feel are inconsistent with the theory.

That is a well-put and completely correct answer. Let's start with some basic inconsistencies/errors.

Law of Conservation of Mass:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html)

Law of Conservation of Energy:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html)

Law of Increased Entropy:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/entropy.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/entropy.html)

Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/angular_momentum.html (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/angular_momentum.html)

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? Next, how did this explosion and expansion cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

How does the Big Bang explain the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons, without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Venus, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards. Do you understand how much energy it would take to spin a planet backwards? anything that hit it hard enough to spin it backwards would take a huge chunk out of it AND knock it out of it's orbital path. Venus has an almost perfect shape and orbit. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons in orbit in both directions.

Additionally, how do you approach the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter. For the Big Bang to be real, all matter should be fairly evenly distributed.

[man]

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? Next, how did this explosion and expansion cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

How does the Big Bang explain the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons, without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Venus, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards. Do you understand how much energy it would take to spin a planet backwards? anything that hit it hard enough to spin it backwards would take a huge chunk out of it AND knock it out of it's orbital path. Venus has an almost perfect shape and orbit. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons in orbit in both directions.

Additionally, how do you approach the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter. For the Big Bang to be real, all matter should be fairly evenly distributed.




The problem here is we don't know the limits of the universe, if there are any. The hardest thing for the human mind to comprehend is something that is infinite.

However if there is a limit, we can assume that, due to the posted laws, the universe is a sphere. We know that the universe is constantly expanding, and according to Steven Hawking that all major systems are moving away from each other. This can only mean that the universe is in fact a sphere. The fact that this sphere is growing means not only was there some force that pushed everything away, but that there is a center.

A center means a few things:
1. Everything started in one place
2. Everything will return to that place.

"uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter"
This all depends on perspective. A huge void may actually be tiny depending on how large the universe actually is. For instance, if you were to shrink the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than the actual thing, even though we have "huge" landforms such as mountains.

Bah, I have to leave, I'll continue later.

[Stol3n]

Interesting Thread :goodjob:

[David88vert]

The problem here is we don't know the limits of the universe, if there are any. The hardest thing for the human mind to comprehend is something that is infinite.

However if there is a limit, we can assume that, due to the posted laws, the universe is a sphere. We know that the universe is constantly expanding, and according to Steven Hawking that all major systems are moving away from each other. This can only mean that the universe is in fact a sphere. The fact that this sphere is growing means not only was there some force that pushed everything away, but that there is a center.

A center means a few things:
1. Everything started in one place
2. Everything will return to that place.

"uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter"
This all depends on perspective. A huge void may actually be tiny depending on how large the universe actually is. For instance, if you were to shrink the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than the actual thing, even though we have "huge" landforms such as mountains.

Bah, I have to leave, I'll continue later.

2 problems with that:

Because of the enormous initial rate of expansion, faster-than-lightspeed signaling would have been necessary for forces to produce and retain universal smoothness over billions of years; however, even the transmission of information above lightspeed is a violation of the theory of relativity. How do you explain the instantaeous expansion, and what energy could overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe?

If you follow Einstein's theories, space is curved due to the presence of matter, but is only positively curved. If you believe that space is uncurved or negatively curved, there must be something to overcome the positive curvature resulting from the presence of the matter. Do you accept the idea of uncurved space of a flat universe, or the negatively curved space of an open universe, and acknowledge the existence of negative gravity? Do you have evidence to provide for the rationale for flat or negative curvature in a universe of significant mass - the mathematics must represent some physical phenomena, specifically, Einstein's publishing of cosmic repulsion.

[NAG2I]

Only one historical writer I know of living in his time, Tacitus, wrote about him. That being said, Tacitus never actually met Jesus or anything of that sort. He just mentioned that some Jew named Jesus was causing trouble in Israel.

Tacitus knew that Jesus existed in the same sense Winston Smith knew Goldstein existed, basically. When you skim over archaelogical evidence you'll actually find that Israel was plagued by would be Messiahs at the time, and that the only thing that differentiates Christ from these others is he lucked out with a religion and the rest are doomed to obscurity.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

[thecrazyone]

For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war.
We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.
Charles Bukowski
US (German-born) author & poet (1920 - 1994)

Live well, be open-minded, proactive, productive, responsible, and tolerant. I don't need religion to be a good person and make sound decisions. But if others do, than so be it. Whatever it takes to upstanding citizen, I guess.

[The12lber]

LOL Alright kiddie. Now I'm being condescending. This is worthless. In no way will you be able to prove your intelligence or mine. This is the internet. YOU were the one who started by being condescending, even though you have nothing to show other than moronic thoughts. YOU are the one who clearly doesn't understand logic.

Clearly, I don't understand logic because I disagree with you and I thought your example was stupid and pointless given the topic of discussion.

I merely put the simple equation to show the difference between that which is blatantly obvious and that which requires logic (btw you're a moron if you don't think x+3=5 requires logic) You clearly don't understand what is going on here and are trying to bring me down to your level. Your demeanor alone confirms any doubts that you are a weak individual. Calling people out over the internet. Someone states a fact that you think is wrong, tell them, don't act like a buffoon.

LOLOLOL HYPOCRISY MUCH?

Get back on topic.

Quickly, its clear that I was wrong from the beginning, GET BACK ON TOPIC SIR. zzzzz.




I notice you don't care to address anything I said about how you can't reliably calculate someone's IQ from their SAT score because of the myriad of other factors that determine said final score. My logics and maths are ironclad, bye.

[YoTa_BoX]

The Eye Of God is watching you!!!!


This is a real Pic from Nasa....i thought it was pretty awesome looking!!

Not really off topic but kinda :P

[xlilvi3tx]

pretty interesting topic... one that probably would never get answered....

in my own opinion... i do not believe in a god. all that crap was placed there to scare u and set u straight. if u didnt like something, what is the easiest way to get someone to do something? tell them god said so. there is no proof of god. and just as some of yall already said on here, i do not need a god to become a good person. and also lol, i got better things to do then sit in a "house of god" for a couple of hours listening to a man that talk about the same crap over and over. "if u dont do this u will go to hell and if u do this u will go to hell" i mean wth man? sorry if im offending u hardcore christians but this is my honest opinion

[The12lber]

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Phlegon lived in the second century... in Greece.
All that is really known about Thallus himself is that he was wrote around the middle of the 1st century... in Greek.

So far so not so hot.



Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Not even remotely conclusive proof of anything... written 40 or so years after the fact?

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.

Okay, we've got one guy. He's actually somewhat reputable. I don't know how far you're really going to get on the word of one historian who was born years after the death of Christ, didn't write until many more years after the death and wrote from half the known world away in Rome (or he might have gone on Campaign during the Massada siege, I can't remember), though.

Josephus is one of the better known historical authors, although in this case considering his time and place in history I'm uncertain of why he would write on such a thing. That said, this is doing a little better.

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." This isn't what we call reliable or evidence.

I'm not impressed. Josephus is a pretty credible source for the most part. That being said, when you look at the context of this particular situation, Its not so good.

The main problem with all of this business is, there's archaelogical evidence this good or better (not saying much) for tens of other messiahs. You're better off just concluding that its an article of faith and leaving it at that.

[NAG2I]

I'm not impressed. Josephus is a pretty credible source for the most part. That being said, when you look at the context of this particular situation, Its not so good.

thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.

[The12lber]

thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.

The point of my comment wasn't that, though.

It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.

I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.

Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?

Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.

The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.

Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.

[NAG2I]

The point of my comment wasn't that, though.

It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.

I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.

Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?

Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.

The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.

Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.


well there is no threat to my faith. i post the things i post either because someone asked a question or said something that was false about believers and the things they believe. i personally don't need all the scientific facts and archeological facts to prove the things i believe. but i do understand that some people cant wrap there head around it without them. and thats perfectly understandable. I was just trying to answer some questions and shed a little bit of truth. which seems like the same thing you are doing. so no wrong on either sides both just trying to show our opinions and thoughts about the topic.

[The12lber]

well there is no threat to my faith.

Lots of people do consider it threatening. Why do you think the ridiculous creationist museum exists or there is so much fuss about evolution even when the science behind it is sound?

[bu villain]

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang?




There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

[cardesignz]

Lots of people do consider it threatening. Why do you think the ridiculous creationist museum exists or there is so much fuss about evolution even when the science behind it is sound?

What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder). This would suggest that at one time there was a perfect genetic code that has merely been losing parts over time resulting in diseases and mutations - what millions of doctors and scientists are constantly fighting today. Scientists cannot even directly link a human to a monkey (our supposed closest relative). Ever heard of a "missing link"?

Of course there is micro evolution (changes) resulting from mutations and genetic selection, but it does not ever involve new genetic information being created. Take for example a dogs. All of the genetic information needed to create virtually every species of dog can be found in a wolf. A poodle would be an obvious result of breeding and mutations.

[BABY J]

There are approximately 500,000 life scientists in the USA. Of that, approximately 400 of them believe in Young Earth Creationism. You think having two scientists on staff somehow gives credibility to an organization that has anatomically incorrect dinosaurs, and absolutely idiocy like a dinosaur with a saddle on it? Ever seen a domesticated reptile? I didn't think so. That's shear lunacy, not science in ANY form. Your average university, bastions of science and thought, will have hundreds of scientists that think the whole idea of a 6000 year old Earth is hysterical.

John D Morris, head of the Institute for Creation Research, has retracted all claims that the prints were human, saying, "it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution." He goes on to say, in Creationist magazing "Impact" that, "Although the evidence is inconclusive, it must be recognized that a number of fossil tracks formerly regarded as probably mantracks now seem to show features which are best interpreted in terms of some unidentified two-legged reptile or other animal. Further studies are under way, but creationists should not, at least for the present, cite these particular footprints as evidence against evolution."

The co-existence of hominid and saurian prints has been repeatedly and consistently refuted since the 1980s. And just like the bogus science at the Creation Museum, the "scientists" claiming these tracks co-existed couldn't even get the saurian or the geological period correct. Photography of these sites was altered, enhanced, and in some cases even doctored fraudulently with carved footprints - all confessed to by the track makers (the tracks were anatomically incorrect). This isn't new news.

Andrew Snelling, of "Answers in Genesis" tried to keep the debate alive back in the later 80s when all the hoax information was coming out. He has since "admitted that perhaps there will never be found any indisputably genuine pre-flood human fossils or pre-flood human artifacts or evidence of pre-flood dwellings. Instead, Snelling has suggested that perhaps no evidence of pre-Flood human beings may ever be found."

Do you really want to continue this? I fell from the same perch - that the Bible is the word of God, you either believe all of it or none of it - that you're on. I can pick apart theology, science, history, you name it. Seriously, I'd suggest you reconsider your theological position or you will likely be on my side of this argument one day. Become OK with the errors, inaccuracy, and inconsistencies and decide they make no difference to your faith. Clinging to the fundamentalist viewpoint will one day implode for you if you're a thinking person.


Oh, and as for the nose counts, the Discovery Institute actively solicits signatures from bonafide scientists that are opposed to evolution. As of 2007 their list contained just north of 700 members from all over the world, of which about 20% were in biology related fields. That's about 140 Biologists. Feel free to verify this at their web site. AiG and ICR both have similar and overlapping lists.

In comparison, the National Center for Science Education has "Project Steve" where they collect names only from credentialed scientists named Steve in the US (in honor of the late Stephen Gould). About 60% of their list of over 900 "Steves" (which, by the way, contains both of the living Nobel Laureates named "Steve") are in biology-related fields. That's 540 biologists named Steve in the US. You can extrapolate this using census date to being roughly 60,000 biologists of any name in the US. You can continue to extrapolate this to eventually reach a nose count in the high 400,000 people range of scientists in all fields in the US alone.

So Cliff's Notes -

~140 Creationist Biologists solicited world wide vs ~60,000 Evolutionist Biologists unsolicited in the United States.

~700 Creationist scientists of any type solicited world wide vs upper 400,000 scientists unsolicited in the United States.

Feel free to do your own research. I don't know why I bothered writing all of that since I'm sure you guys won't accept it. But feel free to counter with REAL information and not propaganda. I'm all for science and debate for the sake of science and debate.

[BABY J]

Oh yeah...
You can find John Morris' retractions in "The Paluxy Mystery." Impact No. 151, In Acts & Facts, Vol. 15, No. 1

You can find Snelling's comments in "Creation (Ex Nihilo)" March, 1986, Vol. 8, No.2, p. 37

I don't quote "nonsense."

[David88vert]

But feel free to counter with REAL information and not propaganda. I'm all for science and debate for the sake of science and debate.

Counter what? You showed exactly zero evidence for or against anything? What is there to debate with you? :lmfao:

Sorry, but you left yourself open for that one.

[David88vert]

There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

If matter always existed, so would space, time, and energy. This has already been disproven by many scientists. Time had a beginning, and so does matter. What created the matter? It's a simple concept - without a foundation, you cannot build a house. Without a foundation, you cannot build on the theory. Anything else is science fiction, not science. Your entire argument above relies on exempting the Big Bang from scientific laws.

On the elastic universe theory, it won't work. The reason it's impossible for the universe to be "elastic" and have multiple Big Bangs due to its enormous entropy. It has a entropy of 1,000,000,000, and that is a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent - for the entire universe. As you know, anything below 1% mechanical efficiency will not oscillate - thus, it is highly improbable that it can be "elastic".

Take your time. I'm not going anywhere. I am just glad that someone is willing to think for themselves, and not just agree with me, or disagree blindly. Without people examing an issue from all sides, you cannot increase your knowledge fully.

[mad3nch1na]

I argue, that the Religion and Science goes hand in hand.
Keep in mind that the Church and Science were tied together for hundreds of years!
The question of whether God exists is not as important as the question

"Is it more beneficial to have religion than with out it?"

I believe that religion is a powerful tool that is responsible for making us who/what we are today. Religion has had a greater contribution to society than the absence of it.

[The12lber]

What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder).



"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Epic fail, sir.

[The12lber]

If matter always existed, so would space, time, and energy. This has already been disproven by many scientists. Time had a beginning, and so does matter. What created the matter? It's a simple concept - without a foundation, you cannot build a house.

Arguing that because science offers an incomplete explanation for the origin of the universe and therefore it must have been god is a logic based argument. Unfortunately, it is logically unsound as you must then explain where the supernatural force that created the universe came from and you're back to square one. All you can conclude is you don't have an answer.

This is what you're trying to do here, don't try to deny it. It doesn't work.

[ahabion]

Wow, still going.... this is good reading, i wish i could pick this up at work... (IA.com is blocked)

The irony of the whole 19 pages is that they are all the same. I say this, you pull something from the air to disclaim it. It's an infinite arguement, one of which I guess, will probably always exist.

Good Luck to all who search for your answers. I know mine, and I'm sticking with it.

For the Bible believers, read the Sermon of the Mount... very carefully.

For the evolutionist believers, rest in the assurance that you have your own belief and theories you are right.

Its a win - win situation... don't cha feel the love!!!

Instead of what is God, how bout what is evolution? Is not evolution the same as God... think about it... to me, both are considered religion.

[David88vert]

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Epic fail, sir.

Actually, it is still closed. You are not creating any new matter, merely converting from one form to another through an expenditure of energy. In your example, you are not decreasing entropy, so you are not violating the 2nd law. That's an important distinction.


Snowflakes, etc, are an example of patterns, not codes. Patterns do not require intelligence to create them, codes and languages do. Can you show me a message that did not come from intelligence?

[David88vert]

Arguing that because science offers an incomplete explanation for the origin of the universe and therefore it must have been god is a logic based argument. Unfortunately, it is logically unsound as you must then explain where the supernatural force that created the universe came from and you're back to square one. All you can conclude is you don't have an answer.

This is what you're trying to do here, don't try to deny it. It doesn't work.

Can you answer where the matter came from? It sounds like you wish to ignore the obvious and choose to build a concept with no basis in foundation. Is this the case?

I have not been mentioning God, only discussing the Big Bang's misconceptions. I have been using science, not religion. You are the one wanting to interject religion into it. Stay on the course, quit trying to take it off on a tangent. If you want to declare that a "higher power" created the matter first, as you foundation, that is up to you - and I can procede in that case to still use science to evaluate the Big Bang after initial expansion. I am simply asking you to establish where the matter that was involved in the Big Bang came from. Or do you deny the existence of the 1st law?

[Maniac1]

I am simply asking you to establish where the matter that was involved in the Big Bang came from. Or do you deny the existence of the 1st law?Theoretical couldn't the big bang be an ever lasting cycle, repeating over and over again? Since matter is now expanding farther away, it should come to a point where matter starts absorbing each other due to gravity, right? And over trillions and trillions of years start forming into another energy orb gaining energy every second til it's density becomes so dense and gains infinite mass then one day re-explodes. This explosion would be even greater than gamma ray bursts, so could this be how big bangs occur? Would this even be possible, or do any laws prevent this theory from existing?

[David88vert]

Entropy will prevent it. There are entire volumes devoted to why it is not possible. If you need me to go into detail, I can later. I posted a little about it earlier in this thread.

[The12lber]

Can you answer where the matter came from? It sounds like you wish to ignore the obvious and choose to build a concept with no basis in foundation. Is this the case?
Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.

[David88vert]

Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.

There is a huge difference between an infinite god being outside of his creation, and a finite creation that self-generates.

In order to lay down a foundation for creationism, believers only have to accept their belief in an unprovable infinite creator.

In order to lay down a foundation for the Big Bang, believers need to prove that finite reality can be created within the laws of science.

While it may appear that it is unfair to make science prove it's hypothesis, that is exactly what science is supposed to do - observe, test, and draw accurate conclusions.

Since you obviously are ready to concede that the Big Bang hypothesis is already flawed, and violates the 1st law, would you like for us to ignore that, and move on to singularity, smoothness, horizon, and magnetics - the obvious next issues to discuss before we really get in-depth? We are only glancing the surface right now, and I think you have established that you do not wish to pursue creation of matter any further. We will just assume that it magically came to exist for now (for the sake of this discourse). Am I correct in this assumption?

[01CDMLUDER]

19 pages....WOW!!

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"?
Science is wrong about alot of things! Even the measurable facts Empirical Science claims as validation are opposed by measurements in physical reality. Light, which can be physically measured to diminish out of existence with distance on Earth travels forever in space so that we can see stars at the end of the universe and the beginning of time. Objects, which come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them on Earth are claimed to move without current force in space. Energy is always consumed on Earth but gravity, which forces objects to come to rest on the surface of the Earth, is not used up when it bends the straight-line motion of the planets into circular motion. Momentum, which is always overcome by gravity on Earth is not affected by gravity in space allowing planets in space to be bent into perpetual circular orbits.
i just don't dont see how people think that the universe just created itself and just got lucky and made an earth thats able to support life. just look at the way are bodies are made! and evolution is just retarded!

Scientists don't say that we came from monkeys. That's a common misconception that people make.They say that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. That means that there was once a creature (lets call it that) that spread into two groups (one on one side of the earth and one on the other side) and one group of them evolved into monkeys or gorillas or chimpanzees etc. and the other group (due to their surroundings) evolved into humans. Nowhere does it say , in any science information source, that we evolved from monkeys. It says that monkeys and humans evolved FROM the same thing, but into DIFFERENT species. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, some of yall had it all mixed up so I explained it to you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141061,00.html

just take a look at this and tell me that god isn't real! lol

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2085071151_01155b8bcd.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2085071253_361aed0b59.jpg?v=0

[Maniac1]

and evolution is just retarded! Sorry, but I don't see how evolution can be retarded. An object changes into something with a more complex design, how would that be retarded when scientists have proven that it existes? Just because we haven't seen it happen, because, it does take thousands of years for the process to even take place? Please explain this opinion of yours. Because the only retarded right now is that statement.


Scientists don't say that we came from monkeys. That's a common misconception that people make.They say that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. That means that there was once a creature (lets call it that) that spread into two groups (one on one side of the earth and one on the other side) and one group of them evolved into monkeys or gorillas or chimpanzees etc. and the other group (due to their surroundings) evolved into humans. Nowhere does it say , in any science information source, that we evolved from monkeys. It says that monkeys and humans evolved FROM the same thing, but into DIFFERENT species. I don't believe in the theory of evolution, some of yall had it all mixed up so I explained it to you.No one here said that we came from monkeys, but primates. Curious George isn't my cousin, but we did start at the same point as him. We can say that we started as a seed and eventually hit a new root and started forming into what best fit our style of living. Our environment is what caused us to change. Lol so dude, all that up there, we all already knew.

[David88vert]

Sorry, but I don't see how evolution can be retarded. An object changes into something with a more complex design, how would that be retarded when scientists have proven that it existes? Just because we haven't seen it happen, because, it does take thousands of years for the process to even take place? Please explain this opinion of yours. Because the only retarded right now is that statement.

No one here said that we came from monkeys, but primates. Curious George isn't my cousin, but we did start at the same point as him. We can say that we started as a seed and eventually hit a new root and started forming into what best fit our style of living. Our environment is what caused us to change. Lol so dude, all that up there, we all already knew.

Evolution is a separate discussion from the Big Bang. Not the same. But as for evolving from a common link, random mutation is not logical or probable mathematically. We can discuss that in another thread of course.

[01CDMLUDER]

There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

its all theories though. no one can prove for sure that either side is right. scientist have been wrong on alot of things...just look at global warming and what scientist said about it before and now!! i know there's a god and and im not trying to force my religion on anyone. but........

Have you ever seen the wind? no.. but u know its there
First, you can know that the wind is there because you can see it moving things. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can see what the wind is doing.

You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it. You can feel it blowing against your face and you can feel it blowing through your hair. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can feel it.

Finally, you can know the wind is there because you can hear it. I can hear the wind whistling through the trees, down the chimney, and around the windows and doors. I can't see the wind, but I know it is there because I can hear it.

How many of you have ever seen God? The Bible says that no one has seen God. Well if we haven't seen him, how do we know he is there? I think we can know that he is there the same way we know the wind is there.

First, we can see Him moving. The Bible says that the Spirit of God moves men to speak and to do things for him. (2 Peter 1:21) We can't see God, but we can see men doing things that God's Holy Spirit has moved them to do.

We can know that God is there because we can feel His presence. The Bible says, "I will fear no evil for Thou art with me." (Psalm 23:4) The Bible also says that "if we love one another, God lives in us." We can't see God, but we know he is there because we can feel his presence in our life.

Finally, we can know He is there because we can hear him. The Bible says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, and if any man hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him." (Revelation 3:20) We can't see God, but we know he is there because he speaks to our hearts.

maybe god just hasn't reached out to u yet. my grandma died and was brought back to life. she told me that she was in heaven but it wasnt here time yet. i read this book called 90 minutes in heaven where this guy gets hit by a semi and was pronounced dead by a few paramedics and then about an hour later he comes back to life.

[Maniac1]

You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it. You can feel it blowing against your face and you can feel it blowing through your hair. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can feel it.Comparing the wind and god is like comparing wine to water.

Both have some things in common, but the texture and ingredients are totally different.

So we can't see the wind, so what?! It's in a different category than supernatural beings. Does god really have that much of an effect on people, or is it the word? Think about it, words have a strong effect on people's mind...

One can say the same things over and over again, til one day, people start to believe it. God is the high and mighty, at first you think about it and say "yeah right" but after seeing people keep on saying this will happen if you do this, you fall for it and believe. Right? Scientists know how winds are created. Sure we can't see it, but it has all more attributes than god. Sure we can't see small breezes, but what about tornadoes? We can see them.

[DoriDori]

There is NO proof of God, due to the fact that there hasn't been any proof that it exists.



[/color]

This is something ive been struggling with- WHAT IS PROOF? Is it one person, or group who claims to be right about something? So then the next guy in line is like, "Well this is what "the man" said, he just figured it out. He says this is how and why it is. Well call it proof." Man is by no means, proof, truth, just, right so whats "proof" to you??

[Maniac1]

[color=black][color=black]

This is something ive been struggling with- WHAT IS PROOF? Is it one person, or group who claims to be right about something? So then the next guy in line is like, "Well this is what "the man" said, he just figured it out. He says this is how and why it is. Well call it proof." Man is by no means, proof, truth, just, right so whats "proof" to you??The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

A statement or argument used in such a validation.

There really isn't another way to explain it.

[DoriDori]

My theory is that we are not smart enough, to have a answer. In time we will be able to answer questions. If you look back 100, 200, 300 years ago, the mind set of Christians is not the same as today. Why? Because we got smarter. I guarantee you, in 100, 200, 300 years the Christian population will decrease.

Thats all I have to say about 'God'

Everywhere you go you will find fakes. Car scenes, clicks, gangs, school, clubs, work, sports. People just following tradition or fads. No passion, No love. Christainity is in no way an exception to it. I could only hope that in time if Jesus himself has not come back already, that the "Christain Population" would decrease. Because I will take 100 people on fire for God, people willing to say "IM ALL IN" to battle with me, before I would take 100,000,000 noncommited people with me any day of the week. Hands down.

And as far as "WERE NOT SMART ENOUGH..", PLEASE!!!! People today are still making the same dumb choices as they were 2 thousand years ago. Drunkeness, Debauchery, Adulty, Murder, Hate Crimes, etc, etc. How are we smarter? What is smarter to YOU???

[DoriDori]

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

A statement or argument used in such a validation.

There really isn't another way to explain it.

Those big words dont mean anything to me lol, put it in a more simple way.

[Crazy Asian]

One reason most Christians believe in God is because there's a definite meaning to them and makes more logical sense then believing in evolution. Atheist too. They dont believe in God created the world in 7 days. They belive that they were somewhat linked to the apes and were evolved from them. I believe it's called genetic drift but that's besides the topic. Yes we have proof for us to believe in and same for you Atheists. You have fossils and other stuff to believe in.

[DoriDori]

So MANIAC, do you believe that God is who he says he is? That God exist?

[Crazy Asian]

For each of us we have the right answers and it's harder for us to understand the concept due to the fact that we're stubborn on what we believe in. Trying to explain Christianity to an Atheist, is like trying to talk to a foreigner. They understand some part which is like heh 10% but the rest is just "what?" Same goes for us Christians. We wont accept anything else due to us having a strong faith in Christianity and God being inbedded in life.

[Maniac1]

So MANIAC, do you believe that God is who he says he is? That God exist?Personally, no.

I don't believe god is what he is or is portrayed in the bible. I think people like to believe in a higher power to make them feel a sense of being or a sense of someone guarding them. Which is fine, if you were 8 yrs old.

But once you get to a point, you have to put away your fantasies and start really thinking for yourself, making your own decisions in life and not going by what a 2000 year old book says is right and wrong.

[DoriDori]

Trying to explain Christianity to an Atheist, is like trying to talk to a foreigner.

It shouldnt be, and if thats how it comes out maybe that person needs to dig deeper. God is simple. I just like hearing peoples different views and reasons behind them.

[Crazy Asian]

Dude no offense but being a Christian some poeple dont understand the key point of the Bible. Each person has a different interpertation on it and also there's hidden meaning in those verses. That's why it's hard. Honestly Ive read the Bible more then my mind can fill up and Im still not understanding most of it due to the fact that there is more meaning. Even my dad is a pastor and he's still continously looking for more meanings in the Bible. Trust me it's not some easy thing to go breezy by.

[DoriDori]

Personally, no.

I don't believe god is what he is or is portrayed in the bible. I think people like to believe in a higher power to make them feel a sense of being or a sense of someone guarding them. Which is fine, if you were 8 yrs old.

But once you get to a point, you have to put away your fantasies away and start really thinking for yourself, making your own decisions in life and not going by what a 2000 year old book says is right and wrong.

Well lets assume the bible is real, and everything in it and God is real. Would you persue him? I'm being serious, just wondering what you would do.

[Maniac1]

Dude no offense but being a Christian some poeple dont understand the key point of the Bible. Each person has a different interpertation on it and also there's hidden meaning in those verses. That's why it's hard. Honestly Ive read the Bible more then my mind can fill up and Im still not understanding most of it due to the fact that there is more meaning. Even my dad is a pastor and he's still continously looking for more meanings in the Bible. Trust me it's not some easy thing to go breezy by.Im not sure how much you've read up on. But im trying to understand that, I want to gain more knowledge of the bible, and have already started talking to my sister about it. The other night we talked for a good two hours about verses, and meanings behind them. Im planning on attending church for a bit and try to understand what people see in it, ask questions and hopefully get some questions answered.

[Crazy Asian]

If you ever need answers I can help to a degree. Ive been studying Revelations but ya. Anything you need just let me know.

[Maniac1]

Well lets assume the bible is real, and everything in it and God is real. Would you persue him? I'm being serious, just wondering what you would do.If God ends up being real. Depending on my situation and life style, I really don't know. Im a stubborn individual, so it's hard for me to answer that.

[Maniac1]

If you ever need answers I can help to a degree. Ive been studying Revelations but ya. Anything you need just let me know.Cool. I have a bible, but I can't even finish reading the first paragraph without me getting bored. LOL if you're going tomorrow with us, I'll ask you some questions then.

[Crazy Asian]

AHAHAH indeed bible is boring at first, but that was not my style. I read Proverbs and then read all of New Testament. Those are the stuff that caught my attention. New Testament is what a lot of Christians live by. We live by some Old Testmant stuff but to a degree that's the past this is now.

[Maniac1]

AHAHAH indeed bible is boring at first, but that was not my style. I read Proverbs and then read all of New Testament. Those are the stuff that caught my attention. New Testament is what a lot of Christians live by. We live by some Old Testmant stuff but to a degree that's the past this is now.The only book that interests me, is the book of revelation.

[DoriDori]

Dude no offense but being a Christian some poeple dont understand the key point of the Bible. Each person has a different interpertation on it and also there's hidden meaning in those verses. That's why it's hard. Honestly Ive read the Bible more then my mind can fill up and Im still not understanding most of it due to the fact that there is more meaning. Even my dad is a pastor and he's still continously looking for more meanings in the Bible. Trust me it's not some easy thing to go breezy by.

O my bro, my friend, i totally agree. Reading the bible front to back is not engough. Im reading the chronolgical bible right now, and i can see myself reading it over and over. I cant wait to start it over cause i know ill catch things i missed before. But one thing ive learned is to never simple pluck out verses from the bible without knowing the story there sown into. The bible is not to be veiwed as verses, it is a story meant to be read cover to cover. My freind Kevin Myers told me this story:

"An old grandmother was pulled over for speeding. When the officer asked the lady to roll her window down he noticed there was a Dust Buster vacuum cleaner humming away on the dash. When asking the old grandmother why she had a vacuum cleaner on her dash she replied to the officer,"my grandchildren told me if put one in my car, i wouldnt get pulled over by the cops. Later that day the officer is informed that the ladys grandchildren had told her that if she placed a "fuzz buster" on her dash, she would avoid the cops."

How many people are living with "dust busters" on there spritual dashboards? By simply plucking fragments from the story, its a sooo easy to mis interpret the meaning of the bible.

[Crazy Asian]

You want to know that mark of the 666 is? It's some crazy stuff and it's already happening.

[Maniac1]

You want to know that mark of the 666 is? It's some crazy stuff and it's already happening.I know what the numbers stands for, and know that we are living in the "end of times" but thats the only book I wanna read! :D

[Crazy Asian]

Mark of the 666 is a barcode. In the coming end of the world the new "world" leader(yes I said world leader when all nations will come under one guy) is going to enforce this barcode on everyone. The barcode has all your info. Social security, driver's license, credit card, everything. This is how he's going to start weeding out the Christians and persecuting them. You basically cant buy or do anything. Already this is happening these past couple of year and people are getting them on their hands or forehead. some christians think this is a blessing by god... UH NO!!!!

[Maniac1]

Mark of the 666 is a barcode. In the coming end of the world the new "world" leader(yes I said world leader when all nations will come under one guy) is going to enforce this barcode on everyone. The barcode has all your info. Social security, driver's license, credit card, everything. This is how he's going to start weeding out the Christians and persecuting them. You basically cant buy or do anything. Already this is happening these past couple of year and people are getting them on their hands or forehead. some christians think this is a blessing by god... UH NO!!!!...

[Crazy Asian]

Ya exactly. Christians are pwned. All other religions are okay with that barcode except us. Let me dig some other notes I had.

[DoriDori]

If God ends up being real. Depending on my situation and life style, I really don't know. Im a stubborn individual, so it's hard for me to answer that.

Yeah i feel you. Im as stubborn as they come. But God fools me everyday lol. I grew up forced to go to church, i hated it. It was just something we did as a family on sundays. Since I started college, life on my own, I looked again and things started to change. I have so much more ahead of and so much more to learn, i know it becasue i want and need more. Things got a little clearer in my perspective about life and the world, i first learned its not about me, its about God and others. Giving yourself away to God, Community, and worship. Its hard and takes everything I have. Im definently here for you if there is anything I could help. Ive been around church for 20 years, but never listened to God untill about a year ago. So i might not be that much help, ill do what i can, but i can sure point you to some people if u need.

Did anyone catch that Tom Brady interview on CBS?? He basically laid it all out there. He said he has at all money, the girl, the super bowl rings, THE SUCCESS, fame, but he relixes theres gotta be somthing else. check it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdcJSsRfL8s

what do you feel?

[Maniac1]

what do you feel?I see what he's trying to say. It's kinda like me, when I take a sh!t I always leave feeling like there was something more, like I didn't finish you know? It gets me thinking, too. LOL But nah, seriously I know what you're saying. Maybe one day I'll get to that point where I need to look for something more.

[DoriDori]

I see what he's trying to say. It's kinda like me, when I take a sh!t I always leave feeling like there was something more, like I didn't finish you know? It gets me thinking, too. LOL But nah, seriously I know what you're saying. Maybe one day I'll get to that point where I need to look for something more.
hahaha reps for you, not that u need em but i just seriously "laughed out loud" in a group when i read that

[Craigers2k]

The Bible tells us that the earth was created in six days. Six days, what does that exactly mean? The changes that the Bible describes could not have taken place in just six twenty-four hour days. It is just not enough time in physical terms. So you tell me, what sounds true? That God placed us here, and everything was form with the quickness, or that over time things evolved to the way they are today?

Everything needs a spark to start things off, and who knows. Maybe the Big bang was that spark for us.

The Bible also says in 2 Peter 3:8 that "...With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

I don't believe God created the Earth in 6 24 hour time periods. I don't think we really have any true concept of God's time.

I believe that God created everything. How exactly He did that, we really don't know. Genesis 2:7 states: the LORD God formed the man [e (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=genesis+2&version1=31#fen-NIV-38e)] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

That could imply that man "evolved" from small organisms. But it was all done under God's direction.

I will say this though, if God wanted to create the Earth and universe in 6 24 hour periods, it wouldn't be beyond Him. The great thing is, my salvation is not based upon me knowing exactly how God created things.

[Craigers2k]

I personally don't know everything about evolution. Just the fact that over a long period of time things must change, this could be due to their environment going threw changes were they have to adapt to these new changes. During this time period, it learns from experince and gains new knowledge, allowing it to live in newer enviroments. Thus "evolving" from a previous stage. A less advance organism.

What you are talking about is simply adaptation, which I hope no one is arguring its validity and which also does nothing to begin to explain how life and this universe began on its own with out any input from God.

I am going to keep reading through the thread, so if you response to my comments and I take awhile that would be the reason.

[Craigers2k]

And a question for thought, if god created all life, then how come humans are the only ones confined to the 10 commandments? Animals kill other animals. Most species are not monogamous. These species lack the reasoning of humans so how can they repent? Do the not deserve eternal life? Is everything destine for hell except the human race?

We (humans) where the only ones created in God's image. In likeness of Him. Animals have no souls.

[Craigers2k]

todays jesus christ = the bush administration.

chritianity is a big misconception that has been held up by 0.50 duct tape for 1,000's of years.

and on top of that...

evolution makes WAYYY more sense than "once upon a time, there was nothing there... and then there was.. and thank god for everything. now go get on your knees and suck his ****, you little ingrateful piece of shet, or burn in hell for the rest of your afterlife"

open your goddamn eyes.

SCIENCE DOES EXIST!

EVOLUTION DOES EXIST!

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

i dont have anyhting to worry about... christianity WILL fail. sooner or later.

Wow, I am now convinced. :rolleyes:

[Craigers2k]

So if I make a book, today. About weird storys, and than store it. And for some reason it gets found 1000 years from now, will I be considered god? I mean, the book will be old, written years ago, right? I mean, thats kinda what you're trying to say... explain.

Lets take a look at what the Bible claims:
In II Timothy 3:16 Paul explains that ALL scripture is "God-breathed," or coming from God.

The Bible also explains in Jeremiah 28:9 that fulfilled prophecy is one of the evidences of the supernatural origin of the word of its prophets. The Bible has many prophecies of Christ prophesied in the OT that were fulfilled in the NT. There are also many prophecies of other various things, fates of cities, countries, areas, etc.

Here's just a few of the prophecies fulfilled in Jesus' life:

Event in Jesus' life----------------------------Old Testament---------Fulfilled Prophecy

Born in Bethlehem....................................Micah 5:2.....................Luke 2:4-7
Sold for thirty pieces of silver...................Zechariah 1:13.............Matthew 26:15
silver used to buy a potter's field.............Zechariah 11:13...........Matthew 27:6
silent when accused.................................Isaiah 53:7...................Matthew 27:12-14
condemned with criminals........................Isaiah 53:12.................Luke 23:32-33
raging thirst when dying..........................Psalm 22:15.................John 19:28
Crucified [hands and feet pierced]...........Psalm 22:16.................John 19:18
pierced after death..................................Isaiah 53:5...................Luke 23:46
buried by a rich man................................Isaiah 53:9..................Matthew 27:57-60
suffering not the end...............................Isaiah 53:11................Luke 24:1-8

Again, this is just a few of them.


The Bible states that it is the Word of God, and has fulfilled prophecies to back up these claims, now how reliable are the documents that we have today?

Lets look at that:

-the bibliographical test, which i have found as an examination of the "textual transmission by which documents reach us. in other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts(MSS) and the time interval between the original and the extant copy(1)."

number of surviving MSS of the New Testament: 24633

the Iliad (for comparison) by Homer is second with 643 MSS

Breakdown of the New Testament MSS:

Greek:
Uncials: 267
Minuscules: 2764
Lectionaries: 2143
Papyri: 88
recent finds: 47
total: 5309 extant greek MSS

Latin Vulgate: 10000 plus
Ethiopic: 2000 plus
slavic: 4101
Armenian: 2587
Syriac Pashetta: 350 plus
Bohairic: 100
Arabic: 75
Old Latin: 50
Anglo Saxon: 7
Gothic: 6
Sogdian: 3
Old Syriac: 2
Persian: 2
Frankish: 1

Also:

Work_________when written________earliest copy
Iliad_____________900 B.C.__________400 B.C.
New Testament___40-100 A.D.________125 A.D.


________________time span_______No. of copies
Iliad_____________500 yrs____________643
New Testament____25 years_________over 24000 (1)

Having so many copies allows us to cross examine the copies for any discrepancies between them.

The discrepancies found are so rare and minor that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix concluded that 'The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure (2).'

'The textual evidence decisively shows that the Gospels were written and circulated during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events. Since there are so many specific names and places mentioned, eyewitnesses could have easily discredited the writings. The New Testament would have never survived had the facts been inaccurate (3).'

'The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt (4).'

References:
1: McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
2: Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998.
3: Zukeran, Pat. 'The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?' Probe Online Ministries. 1997. 29 Apr. 2003
4: Bruce, F.F., Ph.D.. 'The New Testament Documents: Their Date And Attestation.' World

[Craigers2k]

So God created everything, including man, but if this is so, then who created God? Basically, there has to be a creator of the creator, right? Who then gave God the right to be God? And who gave the creator of God the right to create God?
Yes, something of this world can't come out of nothing. God, is not of this world. A "god" by definition is that of a supernatural being, no? Meaning that it would not be limited by anything. God is all powerful. A spiritual being with NO limits, and therefore not requiring a beginning. The universe (this physical world), is not a supernatural being, and can't be held to the same standards. Whether you believe it is one thing, but please tell me you at least understand what I am saying?

[Craigers2k]

If god created all and is the higher power, who would send everyone to hell not matter what without the sacrifice of Jesus? Wouldn't the creator be in control of everything? A sacrifice is usually done to please someone else so who would God be trying to please. Seems to me there is someone behind the curtain.

God was not trying to please Himself, He was reaching out to us. Let me explain.

You must first understand that God made us to be in a loving relationship with us. That is what He/we originally had with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He did give us free will. There is no way to have a true loving relationship without free will. We however disobeyed God and broke that relationship. Sin entered and every human is sinful because of that. But God continued to reach out to us and through the death of Christ and gave the gift of Salvation.

I feel like a good analogy would be like this: Say you fell down, and the only way you could be saved is to have some help you up. I stood in front of you ready to pull you up day in and day out with an outstretched arm waiting for you to take it. You never do and eventually die. Did your death come from my actions or your lack of?

When you understand how Salvation works you understand that God is always there with the offer. He is not going to force you to take it. You have to make the decision. If you refuse, God is not turning His back to you, you are turning your back to Him, and he will honor the decision you have made and you will spend an eternity without Him.

You need to understand that we turned away from God. While we had our backs turned to Him, He reached out to us. It is our responsibility to determine what we do with God's offer. I hope that clarifies things.

[Craigers2k]

Alright picture this, someone is born in a vegative state and and is put on life support for 25 years. That person lacks the reasoning skills due to massive brain damage and is unable to comprehend anything. That person is a born sinner according to your perspective. The person is unable to to worship god. Is that person destine to hell for the lack of being able to "cleanse" its self of the sins? Why is being born a sin?

I believe young children and those not able to mentally grasp the concept of sin, death, and Christ will be in Heaven when they die.

[JDMEK18]

I believe young children and those not able to mentally grasp the concept of sin, death, and Christ will be in Heaven when they die.

Yeah, when using it in that since - we have to understand that we are all born into this world with sin because everyone after Eve (and she was the first so, ) are born in sin because of Adam and Eve's sinful actions..

As much as we would like for children to understand right away ( i have two and I think they understand full concepts but its more then saying yes and no to fully understand and digest something mentally) but they don't. God is not holding them accountable for there actions because they are not aware of there sin yet.. Same with a person that has brain damage? but if he sinned all his life and when he was 21 - got into a car accident and became brain dead before he could accept Jesus in his life - he would perish and this is why we have to live each day like its our last because you have a chance now, you have a choice now but you choose to live in sin instead of turning to the one that can cleanse us... Jesus!

[JDMEK18]

God was not trying to please Himself, He was reaching out to us. Let me explain.

You must first understand that God made us to be in a loving relationship with us. That is what He/we originally had with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He did give us free will. There is no way to have a true loving relationship without free will. We however disobeyed God and broke that relationship. Sin entered and every human is sinful because of that. But God continued to reach out to us and through the death of Christ and gave the gift of Salvation.

I feel like a good analogy would be like this: Say you fell down, and the only way you could be saved is to have some help you up. I stood in front of you ready to pull you up day in and day out with an outstretched arm waiting for you to take it. You never do and eventually die. Did your death come from my actions or your lack of?

When you understand how Salvation works you understand that God is always there with the offer. He is not going to force you to take it. You have to make the decision. If you refuse, God is not turning His back to you, you are turning your back to Him, and he will honor the decision you have made and you will spend an eternity without Him.

You need to understand that we turned away from God. While we had our backs turned to Him, He reached out to us. It is our responsibility to determine what we do with God's offer. I hope that clarifies things.

Amen brother, :goodjob:

[JDMEK18]

Originally Posted by revsk8erdude
todays jesus christ = the bush administration.

chritianity is a big misconception that has been held up by 0.50 duct tape for 1,000's of years.

and on top of that...

evolution makes WAYYY more sense than "once upon a time, there was nothing there... and then there was.. and thank god for everything. now go get on your knees and suck his ****, you little ingrateful piece of shet, or burn in hell for the rest of your afterlife"

open your goddamn eyes.

SCIENCE DOES EXIST!

EVOLUTION DOES EXIST!

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

i dont have anyhting to worry about... christianity WILL fail. sooner or later.

Wow.. not to anger you you - you are def. talking out of anger Have you ever sat down searched where your thoughts come from. What makes you feel this anger towards the Christian belief? Instead bashing you - i just want to challenge you think outside of the box. if you seek Him then he will prove that He exists. God bless you sir.

[Maniac1]

What you are talking about is simply adaptation, which I hope no one is arguring its validity and which also does nothing to begin to explain how life and this universe began on its own with out any input from God.Adaptation is the first stage of evolution, without organisms adapting to their environment we wouldn't have formed. Yes I believe this, and if you believe that the way we started was by Adam and Eve you're too deep into the misconceptions in the bible.



I will say this though, if God wanted to create the Earth and universe in 6 24 hour periods, it wouldn't be beyond Him. The great thing is, my salvation is not based upon me knowing exactly how God created things.
Thats not scientifically possible.

But you can believe what you want to believe, even if they're childish thoughts.

[Craigers2k]

Adaptation is the first stage of evolution, without organisms adapting to their environment we wouldn't have formed. Yes I believe this, and if you believe that the way we started was by Adam and Eve you're too deep into the misconceptions in the bible.


Thats not scientifically possible.

But you can believe what you want to believe, even if they're childish thoughts.

Again, adaptation does not explain how life began. Life must first exist before it can begin to adapt. Where did the first organisms come from?

As I said before, I do NOT believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. But I won't say it is impossible for that to happen.

BTW, your stupid little insults don't make you or your agruments sound more intelligent.

[Maniac1]

Again, adaptation does not explain how life began. Life must first exist before it can begin to adapt. Where did the first organisms come from?

As I said before, I do NOT believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. But I won't say it is impossible for that to happen.

BTW, your stupid little insults don't make you or your agruments sound more intelligent.There is no point to argue with you. I could reply too all six sentences but there really is no point. I've been done with this thread, but unless you can post something I haven't already read there is no point to continue. So if you want to get deep into it, get your bible out and start marinating something that'll have enough intellect to match my own.

Im ready when you are, big shot.

[Craigers2k]

...something that'll have enough intellect to match my own.
:rolleyes:

Maybe you should take some of your own advice.


Maybe next time we can have a discussion with less attitude. :)

[David88vert]

Evolution has never been observed on a genetic level. Show me where a DNA sequence has evolved into a new species.

No one can explain, on a genetic, microbiological level, how Evolution might work, exactly-- carpenter genes, mutations being re-absorbed into the gene pool and disapppearing, etc.

No one can explain why there have been no new 'body plans' since the Cambrian Explosion; nor, for that matter, the Cambrian Explosion itself. The testimony in support of one species changing into another is tentative at best; for a new genus (or anything beyond that)-- completely nonexistent.

Macroevolution is a atheistic religious topic with no true scientific proof at this point in history.

[DJ Raijin]

there was a documentary about this on BBC called:
The Source of All Evil?
You can find it on Google Video, it's split into 2 parts at about 45 minutes each.

Very good watch.

[Sledlude]

Again, adaptation does not explain how life began. Life must first exist before it can begin to adapt. Where did the first organisms come from?

As I said before, I do NOT believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. But I won't say it is impossible for that to happen.

BTW, your stupid little insults don't make you or your agruments sound more intelligent.

I'm going with "life" began as a single-celled organism... millions of years ago, the chemistry was just right on earth, so that the building blocks of life (amino acids, nucleic acids, etc) were formed- eventually associating with each other in away that information was preserved and the organism could replicate... fast forward years and years and YEARS later, and more advanced organisms evolved, such as those that could use sunlight for energy.... fast forward more and primitive marine life evolves which eventually spreads on to land (some staying in the oceans)...

we would not be here if there was no water on our planet. Like in college chemistry- when you want a reaction to take place between two substances, you facilitate this by dissolving them in a solvent so the molecules can interact with each other freely. Over the span of millions of years, the same chemistry took place in the oceans of earth, eventually resulting in life.

to me, this seems more sound than creation in 6 days.

whats missing from the picture is the fact that we cannot "engineer" life in the lab. there is a certain essence that allows things to be alive- its the difference between a bundle of proteins with DNA and an actual living organism. who knows- i hope we get there.

[The12lber]

whats missing from the picture is the fact that we cannot "engineer" life in the lab. there is a certain essence that allows things to be alive- its the difference between a bundle of proteins with DNA and an actual living organism. who knows- i hope we get there.
Not true, they're making artificial life in the lab from the first chromosome up. Totally artificial manmade organisms.

[Sledlude]

where did you see that? reference please. not ball busting, im honestly curious.


if thats true, than theres no room for god in the explanation of the origin of life.

[isa2o3]

dude why do u keep posting these anti-god things.

[Maniac1]

dude why do u keep posting these anti-god things.Im gonna take a guess and say you're talking to me. 1)This thread is actually pretty old. LOL And 2) IA isn't just about posting worthless imformation about cars and the whores lounge. We have alot of members who have more knowledge than just "yo momma said this and that." Take this thread for example.

Why, do you have a problem with all my anti-god threads?

[David88vert]

Not true, they're making artificial life in the lab from the first chromosome up. Totally artificial manmade organisms.

That's not completely true. Venter is not starting with raw nucleotides, he is starting with DNA strands which his team is combining. They've been working on it for years, and always saying that they are "almost there". It will be interesting if they get the strands to combine properly.
Also, they are using an already living bacterial cell for their project, so while it could possibly create a new DNA strand and technically a new species, that does not necessarily mean that they have created life itself. However, it is a very big and important step in the direction of such.

I am assuming that you are referring to this project, as it is the only one that I know of that has a legitimate chance of success - and you did not specify once by name.

[BABY J]

...

[myyellowspec]

I have Just one question. Where are dinosaurs in the Bible? Most of the other animals a brief cameo with Noah. Is it because when GOD was telling people what to scribble down in the bible he just forgot? Or is it because SCIENTISTS, paleontologists, had not discovered their bones yet and therefore the people fabricating the bible could not include them? Also why would GOD let a tornado hit a church???

[man]

I suggest you all take a look at the book "I Don't Believe in Atheists" I haven't read it yet but from reading the descriptions it might revolutionize how you look at religions, and yes, Atheism is a religion.

[David88vert]

I have Just one question. Where are dinosaurs in the Bible? Most of the other animals a brief cameo with Noah. Is it because when GOD was telling people what to scribble down in the bible he just forgot? Or is it because SCIENTISTS, paleontologists, had not discovered their bones yet and therefore the people fabricating the bible could not include them? Also why would GOD let a tornado hit a church???

Read Job 40-41.

And a torando hit a church building, not a church.

[Hulud]

...
:lmao:

i love it



btw: i cant believe this thread is still going, anyone wanna bring me up to speed? or is it just running in circles for pages and pages?

[Ran]

Not sure if it's been mention yet or not, but the bible does refer to the world as a sphere while all others believed it to be flat. This was, obviously, generations before Columbus failed to fall off the end of the Earth.

Just some debatable material.

[TIGERJC]

I really don't care if their is a God or not. I lean to the none believing side, I just don't understand why ppl worship something that has never done anything for you. But who cares, aslong as Christians live a good life and do not interfere with none believers lifestyle then I wish them the best of luck going to that big cloud in the sky. I could be wrong, but if I go to hell just for not believing in something than Fu.ck God :D

I guess I am going to hell, shiet I will just repent right before I die just like all the Murders and real evil ppl of this world. I love loop holes

[Ran]

I really don't care if their is a God or not. I lean to the none believing side, I just don't understand why ppl worship something that has never done anything for you. But who cares, aslong as Christians live a good life and do not interfere with none believers lifestyle then I wish them the best of luck going to that big cloud in the sky. I could be wrong, but if I go to hell just for not believing in something than Fu.ck God :D

I guess I am going to hell, shiet I will just repent right before I die just like all the Murders and real evil ppl of this world. I love loop holesActually, for those that actually read the Bible, you can see that during the second coming of Jesus there will be a great resurrection. Those that were not shown the truth to the word or who were not properly informed about it will be shown the truth and given the chance to redeem themselves by proclaiming faith.

As for people who think they're going to either Heaven or Hell, they're sadly mistaken. According to the scriptures, only 144,000 are going to ascend to Heaven and rule as kings with Jesus Christ. Those who have saved their souls through faith will inherit the new Earth after Armaggaedon. Those that do not believe will be ultimately destroyed, not sent to Hell. Hell is actually reserved for Satan and his demons. It's a place where the damned eternal will reside and be punished for all eternity.

[TIGERJC]

Actually, for those that actually read the Bible, you can see that during the second coming of Jesus there will be a great resurrection. Those that were not shown the truth to the word or who were not properly informed about it will be shown the truth and given the chance to redeem themselves by proclaiming faith.

As for people who think they're going to either Heaven or Hell, they're sadly mistaken. According to the scriptures, only 144,000 are going to ascend to Heaven and rule as kings with Jesus Christ. Those who have saved their souls through faith will inherit the new Earth after Armaggaedon. Those that do not believe will be ultimately destroyed, not sent to Hell. Hell is actually reserved for Satan and his demons. It's a place where the damned eternal will reside and be punished for all eternity.
Now that makes so much sense. You made a believer out of me.

Praise Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ran]

Now that makes so much sense. You made a believer out of me.

Praise Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lmfao: :lmfao:

I just like playing Devil's Advocate in these types of discussions. :D

[BABY J]

Well - I want to go to hell, at least I will see familiar faces there. If I go to heaven I will only know my grandma --- I mean, she's kool and all - but not some1 I wanna hang out with on a regular basis.

[stillaneon]

I suggest you all take a look at the book "I Don't Believe in Atheists" I haven't read it yet but from reading the descriptions it might revolutionize how you look at religions, and yes, Atheism is a religion.

Actually Atheism is the complete opposite
A = opposing to
Theism = The belief in one or more Gods or Dieties.

Atheism is a position. Not a religion.

I think there is a good argument on religious or scientific thoughts. Im with tiger on this. I dont care whether the bible states the truth. I live my life the way I feel I need to. I don't commit crimes that are either illegal or go against the majority of religious texts (anyone who knows me = keep your mouth shut about the past) so I try to live a decent life. If I am going to Hell for that, then so be it.

[The12lber]

Actually Atheism is the complete opposite
A = opposing to
Theism = The belief in one or more Gods or Dieties.

Atheism is a position. Not a religion.

I think there is a good argument on religious or scientific thoughts. Im with tiger on this. I dont care whether the bible states the truth. I live my life the way I feel I need to. I don't commit crimes that are either illegal or go against the majority of religious texts (anyone who knows me = keep your mouth shut about the past) so I try to live a decent life. If I am going to Hell for that, then so be it.

For the sake of accuracy, the absence of god or supernatural beliefs doesn't necessarily make something not a religion. All you need for something to be considered a "religion" - ritual/organized ceremony, coherent set of beliefs/morals and the notion of metaphysical concepts.

Then you can break things into supernatural or naturalist.

That being said, Atheism isn't a religion not because of the absence of god but because Atheism isn't really any one thing - its just the absence of something. Not a coherent set of beliefs etc.

[stillaneon]

Well I try not to post about anything factual without research.

Try it. It does wonders:goodjob:

[Maniac1]

LOL thanks baby j. You bumped the thread with an awesome post! :lmao:

So who here wants to continue with this topic? Im game. :D

[stillaneon]

Im good too. Give me about 45 to get home from work.

[Maniac1]

Im sure it'll take you longer since you drive a slow neon. LOL

But for us to continue we're gonna need members who disagree with the way we see this topic. I doubt they have the balls to post in here, jesus christ is going to tell them that its not worth it and to go donate 10% to their church instead.

[stillaneon]

Turn the other cheek..... Dont forget about that one.

[gtikid]

Actually, for those that actually read the Bible, you can see that during the second coming of Jesus there will be a great resurrection. Those that were not shown the truth to the word or who were not properly informed about it will be shown the truth and given the chance to redeem themselves by proclaiming faith.

As for people who think they're going to either Heaven or Hell, they're sadly mistaken. According to the scriptures, only 144,000 are going to ascend to Heaven and rule as kings with Jesus Christ. Those who have saved their souls through faith will inherit the new Earth after Armaggaedon. Those that do not believe will be ultimately destroyed, not sent to Hell. Hell is actually reserved for Satan and his demons. It's a place where the damned eternal will reside and be punished for all eternity.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

That shit cracks me up right there :lmfao:

[NAG2I]

I've already had some good debates in here with some knowledgeable people. I'm down for some more, there just really isn't a specific topic right now though. i mean obviously god vs. science but there are hundreds of smaller topics to debate beneath that as this thread shows.

[man]

Actually Atheism is the complete opposite
A = opposing to
Theism = The belief in one or more Gods or Dieties.

Atheism is a position. Not a religion.

You seem to be confused. A lack of a god does not mean it isn't a religion:

14 results for: religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Seems like pretty much all of those fit atheism and all other religions fairly well.

The problem is not the belief in a "god," it is the never ending battle between religions to spread their beliefs.

I like to consider myself antireligious.

[Ran]

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

That shit cracks me up right there :lmfao:Eh, I just like throwing out actual stuff from the Bible for debating purposes. These people that post about going to Heaven or Hell are those that simply regurgitate what they're fed by the fire & brimstone preachers they listen to. If anyone were to actually read the book and apply the scriptures, they would know that about 80% of current Christian congregations twist and contort the original scriptures to scare people into believing.

While I'm still on the fence about where my beliefs lie, I do know my fair share about the good book in it's original context. :goodjob:

[stillaneon]

Wrong. the misconception about Atheists is that we believe God doesnt exist. We dont believe in anything of a higher power. so it is a position, not a religion

Wikipedia ownz you

[The12lber]

Wrong. the misconception about Atheists is that we believe God doesnt exist. We dont believe in anything of a higher power. so it is a position, not a religion

Wikipedia ownz you
Yeah, its clearly not a religion in the same vein that Catholicism, Islam, various martial arts etc are religions. The only thing all Atheists have in common is a rejection of the supernatural.

[Möjito]

Eh, I just like throwing out actual stuff from the Bible for debating purposes. These people that post about going to Heaven or Hell are those that simply regurgitate what they're fed by the fire & brimstone preachers they listen to. If anyone were to actually read the book and apply the scriptures, they would know that about 80% of current Christian congregations twist and contort the original scriptures to scare people into believing.

So you've read the bible, correct? The thing is this, we has humans. Use religion as a guide, a guide to give us having some form of importance. Since you've already read the bible you should already know that it's full of ludicrous tails meant to be told to children.

One bright side to it, are the morals behind the storys. It does take time to understand exactly what they mean but they're in there. Along with laughable text. Wouldn't you agree?


But back to what I was saying. We need something to keep us on check, something that'll motivate us. Religion, is just a tool to keep us all under some form of control. If we didn't have it, our world would not be the same. It could be a better or worse way or living, we don't know, but we do know that every culture has one form of it. So that should be enough of proof of its importance.

Im an agnostic.

Once I see some proof of a higher being, then I will change my way of thinking. But we all know we have a better chance at seeing a flying pig before we see God or Jesus Christ. I don't try to convert people into thinking this way, but it's better to have two different point of views in the subject. Knowledge is key.

[Möjito]

You seem to be confused. A lack of a god does not mean it isn't a religion:

This statement has lack of knowledge written all over it.

Let me explain.

You're saying atheism falls in the same category as; christianity, the islamic religion, catholicism, ect ect.? You're basically saying that vegetarians, could in fact be considered a religion. I mean, they all believe in eating meat is wrong, right? So that automatically means they are a religion?

I think you need to stop using google and start using your own hard earned knowlegde.

[Möjito]

Actually, for those that actually read the Bible, you can see that during the second coming of Jesus there will be a great resurrection. Those that were not shown the truth to the word or who were not properly informed about it will be shown the truth and given the chance to redeem themselves by proclaiming faith.

As for people who think they're going to either Heaven or Hell, they're sadly mistaken. According to the scriptures, only 144,000 are going to ascend to Heaven and rule as kings with Jesus Christ. Those who have saved their souls through faith will inherit the new Earth after Armaggaedon. Those that do not believe will be ultimately destroyed, not sent to Hell. Hell is actually reserved for Satan and his demons. It's a place where the damned eternal will reside and be punished for all eternity.

Remember those ludicrous tails I was talking about? Your post is the perfect example of what I was referring to.

[Ran]

Remember those ludicrous tails I was talking about? Your post is the perfect example of what I was referring to.This is where that thing called "faith" comes into play. What may be ludicrous to you, may be historical to others. Hell, there's tons of physical evidence concerning the Jews deliverance from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea that was split by Moses through the power of God.

As for another tale, what about the Prophecy of Babylon? Thousands (or hundreds, can't remember) of years before the destruction of the great city, Isaiah prophesied not only the date of it's fall, but the method by which they would be invaded and even the name of the general that would lead the charge, Cyrus. Cyrus wasn't even Jewish or Christian. Also, it was told that that city would not just be destroyed, but annihilated and would never be built upon again. To this day, the city and it's surrounding area lie in ruins, just 50 miles South of Bagdad.

There's a lot of stuff that we can find debatable in the Bible, but a lot of it has come to physical truth. It makes you wonder sometimes.


Im an agnostic.

I don't try to convert people into thinking this way, but it's better to have two different point of views in the subject. Knowledge is key.Same boat here. :cheers:

[stillaneon]

The funny thing about faith, is even Science is based on faith.... A lot of people dont realize this......

The universe is infinite, right?? Because Science says so. but even they have to have faith that it is correct...

Most people believe in God because a preacher told them too and its the best thing around....

My biggest issue with most christians who try to get me to convert is the saying, "Why not be safe. If it doesnt matter and there may not be a God, why not just play it safe, just in case." Why do I want to give something else the credit for the **** I do?? If I won the lottery I sure as hell am not going to give the credit to someone else....

[Maniac1]

The universe is infinite, right?? Because Science says so. but even they have to have faith that it is correct... Unlike religion. Scientists can calculate distance with light. Im sure they used the word "infinite" because to this day they haven't found a "dead end" in the universe. I agree with your comment about Science also has to have faith, we all knew this already. Again, science has proven alot of things, unlike religion... I'd rather "read" and try to understand things that have been proven and "seen."

[The12lber]

This is where that thing called "faith" comes into play. What may be ludicrous to you, may be historical to others. Hell, there's tons of physical evidence concerning the Jews deliverance from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea that was split by Moses through the power of God.

There actually isn't any evidence for any of this. In fact, Moses' only mention is in in the bible. Other references come centuries afterwards and are based on the Jewish texts.

"Many archaeologists, including Israel Finkelstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein) and William G. Dever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Dever), regard the Exodus as non-historical, at best containing a small germ of truth."
If there were tons of archaelogical evidence I don't think this would be the case.

[Ran]

There actually isn't any evidence for any of this. In fact, Moses' only mention is in in the bible. Other references come centuries afterwards and are based on the Jewish texts.Not sure how old your sources are, but here are some pics of archaelogical finds from within the Red Sea. A turned over Chariot and some wheels. More include human bones and other pieces of clothing, armor, ect...

There was actually a special on this on the Discovery or History Channel a while back.

[The12lber]

Not sure how old your sources are, but here are some pics of archaelogical finds from within the Red Sea. A turned over Chariot and some wheels. More include human bones and other pieces of clothing, armor, ect...

There was actually a special on this on the Discovery or History Channel a while back.

Aside from this not even remotely proving the exodus (or even being evidence of it at all) or anything related to it like Jews in Egypt or Moses and being a really limited find, I guess I'm supposed to infer from single chariot being at the bottom of the see that the sea came back and swallowed it up while it was being ridden on the previously water covered ocean floor?

Explanation : It came off a boat. As a side note, that chariot doesn't look like those of the Egyptians at the time. I could be wrong but I am fairly confident about this.

[Ran]

Aside from this not even remotely proving the exodus (or even being evidence of it at all) or anything related to it like Jews in Egypt or Moses and being a really limited find, I guess I'm supposed to infer from single chariot being at the bottom of the see that the sea came back and swallowed it up while it was being ridden on the previously water covered ocean floor?Without carbon dating, which I'm not sure if it's been done or not, it's hard to tell. However, individual discoveries lead to more and should not be discredited.

I'm not going to sit here and bust your chops into believing that God came down and wiped out a bunch of rampaging Egyptians in the middle of a sea. Especially considering how I'm on the fence about it myself. I'm just throwing out things to counter your original statement that there was no archaelogical evidence, which at first glance you were quick to discredit anyway.


Explanation : It came off a boat. As a side note, that chariot doesn't look like those of the Egyptians at the time. I could be wrong but I am fairly confident about this.Your reply is as much of a hypothesis as those that claim it to be from the Exodus.

[stillaneon]

Another Explanation for the chariot wheel:

Red Sea= Dump. Not hard to believe that egyptians threw their dead and trash into the red sea which would be far enough to prevent disease but close enough that it would make it worth the trip...

[The12lber]

Your reply is as much of a hypothesis as those that claim it to be from the Exodus.
Not really, since stranger things have happened than *gasp* stuff getting deposited on the ocean floor because it came off a boat. In fact I'm pretty sure **** like that is pretty common. Go snorkeling at a marina and see if there's any evidence of man's at the bottom.

As far as stuff like the Red Sea opening up and allowing for land travel on the (previous) sea floor? I don't think a whole lot of well documented **** like that has gone down.

Random chariot wheels on the sea floor is simply != archaelogical evidence of exodus. If we found a submerged Landrover in the Mariana Trench would we assume it was evidence of a deep sea camping trip?

There's no Egyptian record of an entire civilization of Jews in slavery either.

[Ran]

There's no Egyptian record of an entire civilization of Jews in slavery either.Egyptians also don't keep record of anything negative regarding their history.

[The12lber]

Egyptians also don't keep record of anything negative regarding their history.
They don't keep records of military reversals. All we've established is there's no evidence of it happening or the events related to it. The "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" argument isn't a very strong one.

[Ran]

Well, that was fun times stirring the water. I'll check back in another 15 pages or so maybe, depending if the thread is still here or not. Later. :)

[cardesignz]

This looks interesting:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

[The12lber]

This looks interesting:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
I'm pretty sure that's the movie that said the cause of Nazism/Eugenics/The Holocaust was solely evolution.

[Maniac1]

I'm pretty sure that's the movie that said the cause of Nazism/Eugenics/The Holocaust was solely evolution.It did say that. But the trailers and the interview RC Sproul had with Bein Stein were actually pretty interesting. After reading your posts in this thread, I can tell you and I think alot alike when it comes to this subject. And im sure you too find what they had to say interesting.

The points "Expelled: No intelligence allowed" are pretty deep. I know im going to see the movie just to see what all the hype is about. One thing I didn't really find cute, was the fact that Bein Stein kept saying that all creation started from a puddle of mud, and the cause of life was started cause of a lighting bolt hitting this puddle. I found it childish from his part.

[Maniac1]

And speaking of Expelled NIA. I think that could start a very nice arguement and would be a wonderful addition to this thread. Of course, I doubt alot of people know what im talking about lol. Here is what yall need to know to if you want to continue talking about this topic. I'd personally like to see people's point of view on this...

Intelligent design, that's what it's about.

[The12lber]

One thing I didn't really find cute, was the fact that Bein Stein kept saying that all creation started from a puddle of mud, and the cause of life was started cause of a lighting bolt hitting this puddle. I found it childish from his part.
He really doesn't have any excuse to be feigning that kind of ignorance either considering he's a smart enough guy. At least smart enough to beat idiots of that level and prevent them from winning his money.

[Möjito]

And speaking of Expelled NIA. I think that could start a very nice arguement and would be a wonderful addition to this thread. Of course, I doubt alot of people know what im talking about lol. Here is what yall need to know to if you want to continue talking about this topic. I'd personally like to see people's point of view on this...

Intelligent design, that's what it's about.


Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

I don't see why it had to be the Christain God. Personally I have to give credit to the supporters of ID because they're taking a big resk by talking about it. Not a topic your normal person would challenge. I could jump in the subject, but like you said. I doubt alot of members even know what ID is.

[Möjito]

Most people believe in God because a preacher told them too and its the best thing around....

Preachers tell you alot of things. One being that you're a devil if you don't believe in the ways of Christ. Yet, you're still welcomed to their church, as long as you donate 10% of what you make. The word God, is a very strong word. Why do you think some cluts back then got so powerful? Ignorance + Religion = Devastation.

[Möjito]

I don't see why it had to be the Christain God.

But back to ID and the idea of the creator being a Christain God.

Instead of coming up with the conclusion of the designer, why couldn't they come up with a new name while they were at it? With that statement im sure alot of other religious people with a different religion point of view got offended. I see harsh times in out future for sure. Religion is becoming a topic that is so serious, that even talking about it could leave you jobless and leave you with a bad reputation.

[Möjito]

This is where that thing called "faith" comes into play. What may be ludicrous to you, may be historical to others. Hell, there's tons of physical evidence concerning the Jews deliverance from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea that was split by Moses through the power of God.

Faith to me is this...

Something you already know will happen and or wish wouldn't happen. For example.

I have faith that I'll get my pay check every Friday. I have faith that my girl friend won't cheat on me. I have faith that I know I won't die tomorrow. Faith to me, is something I know will or will not happen. Understand where im coming from with all this? Faith in something you have never seen, seems childish to me. Because it's usually children who walk around proudly about their faith. Faith that there is a tooth fairy, faith that Santa will bring them presents on Christmas, faith that the Easter bunny will place eggs on the ground even though we all know grown ups put them there... That's faith in my opinion.

And as for the physical evidence on the spliting of the Red Sea. I would love to see the evidence first hand. Like, is there microscopic evidence of magic particles around the shore or on the sea floor? Seriously, I would believe it if they crossed a small creek, but a sea? No way. LOL it's just not possible. But again, like you said previously. It all has to do with faith, and people with the wrong faith, will believe it.

[Sledlude]

Not sure how old your sources are, but here are some pics of archaelogical finds from within the Red Sea. A turned over Chariot and some wheels. More include human bones and other pieces of clothing, armor, ect...

There was actually a special on this on the Discovery or History Channel a while back.

yeah... being that the whole red sea parting thing supposedly happened thousands of years BC, i doubt it would still be around. It would definately be degraded by now. That thing looks like it has been in the ocean for less than 200 years.

It seems that most of the 'proof' supporting stories from biblical text doesn't really support them at all, but people like to read into things. If you really want to believe, you will find away to justify it no matter how rediculous it sounds.

[David88vert]

If you really want to believe, you will find away to justify it no matter how rediculous it sounds.

And if you really don't want to believe, you will find a way to justify your non-belief just as easily.....;)

[The12lber]

And if you really don't want to believe, you will find a way to justify your non-belief just as easily.....;)
Its not too hard to not believe in something there's no evidence of - not to mention by deciding that if you really want to make a logical argument for supernatural origins to the universe, you'll never prove its your conceptualization of "god".

[Sledlude]

^ what he said. you don't have to 'justify' non-belief with evidence; if there is no evidence, thats justification enough. and a wheel found in the ocean covered in coral doesnt cut it.

[Maniac1]

^ what she said. LOL

[BABY J]

Faith to me is this...

Something you already know will happen and or wish wouldn't happen. For example.

I have faith that I'll get my pay check every Friday. I have faith that my girl friend won't cheat on me. I have faith that I know I won't die tomorrow. Faith to me, is something I know will or will not happen. Understand where im coming from with all this? Faith in something you have never seen, seems childish to me. Because it's usually children who walk around proudly about their faith. Faith that there is a tooth fairy, faith that Santa will bring them presents on Christmas, faith that the Easter bunny will place eggs on the ground even though we all know grown ups put them there... That's faith in my opinion.

And as for the physical evidence on the spliting of the Red Sea. I would love to see the evidence first hand. Like, is there microscopic evidence of magic particles around the shore or on the sea floor? Seriously, I would believe it if they crossed a small creek, but a sea? No way. LOL it's just not possible. But again, like you said previously. It all has to do with faith, and people with the wrong faith, will believe it.

HOLY SH*T who are you!!!!???? It's like.... you have a brain or something that you are like... USING. Crazy sh*t.

Sounds a whole lot like:

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showpost.php?p=34774558&postcount=26

[Möjito]

HOLY SH*T who are you!!!!???? It's like.... you have a brain or something that you are like... USING. Crazy sh*t.

Sounds a whole lot like:

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums...58&postcount=26


Uhh thanks?

And about your post, ummm yeah. It's a little too long for my taste, im sure it's very educational if you compared my post with yours. Personally I think a nice short and sweet post is all it takes to get the point across.

[ShooterMcGavin]

90% of his argument was based on semantics. he must've been an A+ english/literature student, good for him.

[CosmoLTW]

See posts like this make it obvious that you had your mind made up way before you asked anyone's opinion. If you wanted to see what people of any faith believed, wouldn't you go to a respected leader of the faith? Or if you wanted to see how science explains the hard questions, wouldn't you go to a professor or a scientist? But to pose the question on here when none of us are the Pope or Hawking, the obvious point of it is just to argue.

[soul]

all your answers and great sources and points from all sides, rip this thread
http://kallistos.biz/superliber/images/godDelusion.jpg

[soul]

See posts like this make it obvious that you had your mind made up way before you asked anyone's opinion. If you wanted to see what people of any faith believed, wouldn't you go to a respected leader of the faith? Or if you wanted to see how science explains the hard questions, wouldn't you go to a professor or a scientist? But to pose the question on here when none of us are the Pope or Hawking, the obvious point of it is just to argue.
whats makes a preacher or pope know more about god than any of the rest of us? Same goes for theoligian's..... they go on belief in the unknow and blind faith in the unknow, along with "teachings" and "scipture" passed down.
Scientist on the other hand work with actual "facts" and "evidence" and can prove things........ big differnce, saying go to the head of a church or pope or anything to get the right "idea" or the decision on god or "religion" is complete bull****, they have no more knowledge or say so than a "religious" person walking downt he side walk, ****,teacher,bum, or construction worker, makes no difference.... please try to argue and differ

[CosmoLTW]

whats makes a preacher or pope know more about god than any of the rest of us? Same goes for theoligian's..... they go on belief in the unknow and blind faith in the unknow, along with "teachings" and "scipture" passed down.
Scientist on the other hand work with actual "facts" and "evidence" and can prove things........ big differnce, saying go to the head of a church or pope or anything to get the right "idea" or the decision on god or "religion" is complete bull****, they have no more knowledge or say so than a "religious" person walking downt he side walk, ****,teacher,bum, or construction worker, makes no difference.... please try to argue and differ
Well I do think that non-theologians(?) can know those things just as much as the head of a church or synagogue or whatever, but you are definitely going to find more people that are educated in that field in a place of that nature than on here. The vast majority of the people I meet that call themselves "religious" don't in fact have any clue what they really believe. They just take someone else's word for it because they were raised that way or are comfortable there or just going through the motions, etc. And btw, I don't mean that to say anything against anyone on here.
But for instance if you had a question about something specific, someone like that would probably have a better chance of knowing where to find scripture that would back it up. But for instance I am a Christian, so if I have a question about something I don't understand, I will go ask a minister at my church. It seems like a lot of people write off religion as not having the answers when they haven't really looked. That was my main point. Is before you judge someone else's belief system and give a public opinion on it, I think you should have a pretty good knowledge of it first.

[CosmoLTW]

(cont.)
Also, there is just as much faith based in believing in evolution as there is in religion. I'm not talking about micro-evolution(sp?) because that is pretty obviously in existence. It is just pretty much adapting to one's environment. I'm talking about macro-evolution, where you have huge species jumps over millions of years. With all the species that become extinct each day, what's to say that wasn't a "missing link" that we were looking for but a species that lived and died off just like millions of others? Or if only one copy of that particular missing link is found, how do you know it's not just a mutation, a fluke? I think on both sides of the fence people force what they claim to believe into a tiny little box to serve the agenda they had all along. But if you go into it with an open and humble mind, you can take away much more from both science and religion.

[soul]

Well I do think that non-theologians(?) can know those things just as much as the head of a church or synagogue or whatever, but you are definitely going to find more people that are educated in that field in a place of that nature than on here. The vast majority of the people I meet that call themselves "religious" don't in fact have any clue what they really believe. They just take someone else's word for it because they were raised that way or are comfortable there or just going through the motions, etc. And btw, I don't mean that to say anything against anyone on here.
But for instance if you had a question about something specific, someone like that would probably have a better chance of knowing where to find scripture that would back it up. But for instance I am a Christian, so if I have a question about something I don't understand, I will go ask a minister at my church. It seems like a lot of people write off religion as not having the answers when they haven't really looked. That was my main point. Is before you judge someone else's belief system and give a public opinion on it, I think you should have a pretty good knowledge of it first.
obsolutely, i dont care what people believe or what religion its fine with me, its ignorance from people towards relgions or people who are religious ignorance towards others belief, all icare about no matter what you claim or practice, is the greater good of man ;)

[CosmoLTW]

obsolutely, i dont care what people believe or what religion its fine with me, its ignorance from people towards relgions or people who are religious ignorance towards others belief, all icare about no matter what you claim or practice, is the greater good of man ;)
Ha well said. If my rep was worth a dam I'd give you some.:goodjob:

[MoFo]

Is before you judge someone else's belief system and give a public opinion on it, I think you should have a pretty good knowledge of it first.
If that person has no knowledge, they can still post up their opinions on the subject. No crime in that.

[CosmoLTW]

If that person has no knowledge, they can still post up their opinions on the subject. No crime in that.
Well fine but no one will or should respect someone who voices opinions on something they know nothing about

[The12lber]

(cont.)
Also, there is just as much faith based in believing in evolution as there is in religion. I'm not talking about micro-evolution(sp?) because that is pretty obviously in existence. It is just pretty much adapting to one's environment. I'm talking about macro-evolution, where you have huge species jumps over millions of years. With all the species that become extinct each day, what's to say that wasn't a "missing link" that we were looking for but a species that lived and died off just like millions of others? Or if only one copy of that particular missing link is found, how do you know it's not just a mutation, a fluke? I think on both sides of the fence people force what they claim to believe into a tiny little box to serve the agenda they had all along. But if you go into it with an open and humble mind, you can take away much more from both science and religion.

Nobody (rational) contests the fundamental science behind the chemistry which creates medicine or the anatomical knowledge behind life saving medical procedures, the operations of various types of power plants which light and heat their homes or the various complex hardware and software systems which are enabling you to read this right now.

But as soon as science (paleontoleogy, geology, dating techniques, evolutionary biology, etc) appears to be contradictary to their religious beliefs, everybody thinks that all scientists in the respective field are quacks, that they're wrong, that science is a complementary explanation to the workings of the universe in the occassional absence of god and that the contested article(s) is/are "just a theory" (without knowing what a theory is in a scientific context~) etc.

Its mass idiocy, and if you subscribe to it, you're an idiot too.

[CosmoLTW]

Nobody (rational) contests the fundamental science behind the chemistry which creates medicine or the anatomical knowledge behind life saving medical procedures, the operations of various types of power plants which light and heat their homes or the various complex hardware and software systems which are enabling you to read this right now.

But as soon as science (paleontoleogy, geology, dating techniques, evolutionary biology, etc) appears to be contradictary to their religious beliefs, everybody thinks that all scientists in the respective field are quacks, that they're wrong, that science is a complementary explanation to the workings of the universe in the occassional absence of god and that the contested article(s) is/are "just a theory" (without knowing what a theory is in a scientific context~) etc.

Its mass idiocy, and if you subscribe to it, you're an idiot too.

Well actually there is a reason why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"...? It is classified as a theory. And you are very good at making your sentences sound nice and intricate and whatever. But to think that the science that studies all of the fields you mentioned above are in any way related to the study of evolution is a far better example of idiocy. Now I didn't insult anyone else for their beliefs and I would expect the same from you. You do realize that the last time they did a national survey, only something like 10-20% (I don't remember the exact number, but I'm almost positive it was 15%) believes in atheistic evolution. I don't completely throw out the idea of the possibility of it actually working, but at least when I looked at it, I found macro-evolution to be a stretch. Not to say it was way off or all scientists who buy into it are a quack. All I'm saying is that there is faith applied to that belief system too. There are still holes in the theory and I can't explain everything that happens based on my faith. You put your faith where you want, and I'll put mine where I see fit.

[soul]

even darwin himself, didnt fully believe his own thoery, i mean come on lol