Debate Do you think that God exists?

you have to imagine the idea of a gryphon.. not accept that there is one in his closet.


it's called the number 0 people.

 

I'm not exactly sure whether I do or not. When I was a little younger, I accepted the idea wholeheartedly because society implanted it into my brain. "There is a god, and you better be good because if you're not he's going to damn you to hell!" Well, maybe not that EXACTLY, but something along those lines.

Science basically has a logical explanation for everything that happened, and though usually my brain doesn't agree with logic, I can't help but wonder. I used to think "yeah, so we evolved from chimps. Where did the chimps come from?" but when I found out that they may have evolved from bacteria (I think that was it anyway), I realized there was absolutely nothing preventing the belief that there is no God.

Religion, on the other hand, quotes everything from millenium old people and books. In theory, it's a nice belief, but can things from thousands of years ago really beat the theories of science?

Really, whose to say that Jesus wasn't a raving lunatic who wanted attention and claimed to see God to get it, then decided he could write about his experiences in a book, claim God wrote it, and start his own religion!

Note: Don't flame me, I don't actually believe that. It's just a suggestion.

I mean, God sort of has the same aspect as Santa Claus. Maybe a little more in depth, but the same basic premise. Be good and you go to heaven. Be bad and you go to hell. Santa Claus is most obviously not real, what's to say God is? Where's the evidence?

Even though science has basically pointed me in the direction of "God doesn't exist and people who sit around and waste their Sundays praying to invisible men are just wasting their time", a lingering belief keeps me from wholly declaring myself an atheist.

For the same reason that keeps me from saying "God isn't real! Forget religion and spend your Sundays enjoying yourself!" People want something to believe in. If god doesn't exist, what happens to us after death? We die, we get buried six feet under, and we never get to think, breathe, or feel again. It's human nature to want to live, and if you believe in religion, you get to live after death!

I know we should just "cherish life" and enjoy it while it last, but I still have this irrational fear of ceasing to exist. At least if God is real I always have heaven (or more likely hell XD) to look forward to.

People panic when their beliefs are questioned because, subconciously, some are like me and realize that their beliefs may possibly be lies. They don't want to think that because then they'd have to accept that eventually they'll cease to exist.

Not that the idea of religion is bad because it teaches people basic morals and human rules of conduct. But that's a whole different thread.

 

What kagomes arrow said somewhat proved to something i have said in an earlier post. The reason that people believe in his religion so much is because they want an afterlife. They cant accept the fact that you die and you die....thats it. They expect a continuation for everything.

But I have to admit...It really gives people alot of hope to do good. "Oh if you do good you go to heaven and live eternal happiness. If not than youll end up in eternal damnation."

This is more like a threat is it not.

 

Not true. The Bibl is 100% true. It is also inline with science.

Psalm 8:8, ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS." After reading Psalm 8:8, Matthew Maury, a U.S. Naval officer, set out to locate these curious "paths in the seas." He discovered the oceans have paths which flow through them. He became known as the "pathfinder of the seas". How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean.


Luke 17:30, "Even thus shall it be IN THE DAY when the son of man is revealed. (vs 31) IN THAT DAY . . . (vs 34) I tell you, IN THAT NIGHT . . . " Nobody in Luke's day thought it could be day and night at the same time! They thought the earth was flat! Luke was written around 65 A.D. How did Luke know something that the scientists didn't know until the 16th century?

Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round? The scientists of Isaiah's day thought the earth was flat. They didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of science?

Job 26:7, ". . . and hangeth the earth upon nothing." During the time of Job, it was believed a god named Atlas held the earth on his shoulders! Nobody believed the earth "hangeth upon nothing" Job is the oldest book in the Bible! Written over 3500 years ago! How did Job know something that was IMPOSSIBLE to know during his day?

Proverbs 6:6-8, "Go to the ant. . . gathereth her food in the harvest." Life's Nature Library "The Insects" (p.163) commenting on Proverbs 6 reads, "One of the entomological puzzles of the last century concerned this observation by Solomon. There was no evidence that ants actually harvested grain. In 1871, however, a British naturalist showed that Solomon had been right after all. . ." How did Solomon know that in 1000 B.C.?

"Ecclesiastes 1:6, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again ACCORDING TO HIS CIRCUITS." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the wind traveled within circuits? How did he know something that the aerologists and meteorologists are just now discovering? THINK ABOUT IT! How can these men, with their limited knowledge thousands of years ago, be so far ahead of science?

Proverbs 6:6-8, "Go to the ant. . . gathereth her food in the harvest." Life's Nature Library "The Insects" (p.163) commenting on Proverbs 6 reads, "One of the entomological puzzles of the last century concerned this observation by Solomon. There was no evidence that ants actually harvested grain. In 1871, however, a British naturalist showed that Solomon had been right after all. . ." How did Solomon know that in 1000 B.C.? How did Solomon CLEARLY, detail a scientific FACT, that was IMPOSSIBLE for him to know in 1000 B.C.?

Proverbs 17:22, "A merry heart doeth good like a MEDICINE." An article in The Birmingham News, titled Laughter: Prescription for Health, said, the LATEST medical evidence reveals that, "At some point during laughter, your body issues A PRESCRIPTION from the pharmacy in your brain." How did the writer of Proverbs know that - 3000 YEARS AHEAD OF MEDICAL SCIENCE?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics Confirms Psalm 102:26
First, let us consider the science of thermodynamics: In Psalm 102:25,26, we read, "Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed."

In verse 25, we find, restated, the fact that God is the Creator of all that exists. Verse 26 then tells us something highly significant, not about the initial, created state of the universe, but about the present state of the universe. According to this Scripture, written three thousand years before the dawn of modern science, we learn that the universe is like a suit of clothes that is wearing out. In other words, the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly.

That is not what most people believed when this Scripture was recorded. According to human observations, the universe was unchangeable. The statement that the universe is constantly becoming more random, less orderly, is a scientifically testable statement. The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, has been fully verified by modern science. Everywhere we look, from the scale of the galaxies down to the scale of the atom, we find a universal, natural tendency of all systems to go from order to disorder; from complexity to simplicity. Thus, clusters of galaxies are dispersing as the galaxies move away from one another.

The rotation of the earth is slowing; the magnetic field of the earth is decaying. Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. Many atoms decay to simpler products, and it is even being postulated that sub-atomic particles, such as the proton, decay, though ever so slowly, into energy.

Each star, including our own sun, is constantly burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Eventually, every star in the universe, unless God intervenes (which we are certain He will), will exhaust its fuel and become dark and cold. The universe would then be cold and dead, and, of course, all life would have ceased long before the last death throes of the universe. Even now, every so often a nova or supernova occurs, and a star very rapidly becomes less orderly, in a gigantic explosion.

This natural tendency towards disorder is so all-pervasive and unfailing that it has been formalized as a natural law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Isaac Asimov has stated it this way (Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6): "Another way of stating the second law then is: `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the Second Law is all about."

There is certainly no doubt, then, that modern scientific research has verified the truths expressed in Psalm 102:26. Many years of careful measurements by scientists, repeated many thousands of times, established beyond doubt the scientific truths expressed in that verse of Scripture.

The Universe Must Have Had a Beginning
Furthermore, the fact that the universe is deteriorating establishes beyond doubt that it hasn't been here forever, because if it had, it would have run down a long time ago! This confirms another scientifically testable statement found in the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created...." This verse of Scripture states that the universe has not been here forever; that it had a beginning sometime in the past. Again, let us remember that this is not what most people believed when the Bible was written. They believed that the universe had been here forever, and would continue to be here forever. The Bible says, not so! The universe had a beginning - when God created it - and it is now running down. Thus, modern science has established the fact that what most people believed about the universe being eternal was wrong, and that the Biblical statements on the subject were precisely correct.

The Finished Creation Confirmed by the First Law of Thermodynamics
If there is a second law of thermodynamics, there must be a first law, of course. Indeed there is, and this natural law confirms another scientifically testable statement found in the Bible. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy may be converted into another, energy may be converted into matter, and matter may be converted into energy, but the total quantity always remains the same. You can't get something from nothing, and you can't take something and make nothing out of it.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, the most firmly established natural law in science, confirms the Biblical statement concerning a finished creation, as found in Genesis 2:1,2: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made."

If it could be shown that somewhere in this universe matter or energy was coming into being from nothing, then this Biblical statement of a finished creation would be falsified. The opposite is true. It has been precisely verified. Once again, a Biblical statement has withstood scientific test."
-Last half of post From-
http://www.icr.org

 

LOL. A character limit of only 10,000????

It’s a code. And we’ve just scratched the surface.
Yet it accurately predicted the Gulf War, the collision of a comet with Jupiter, and the assassination of [Israeli Prime Minister] Rabin. Every major advance in modem technology appears to be recorded in code by pairs -for example, Wright Brothers/ airplane; Edison/ electricity/ light bulb; Marconi/ radio. Newton/ gravity; Einstein/ science/ he overturned present reality. Drosnin claims that even musicians, artists and playwrights are found encoded: Beethoven/ German composer; Rembrandt/ Dutch/ painter; Shakespeare/ Macbeth/ Hamlet/ stage.

Plus the consideration of mathematical possibilities:

THIS Has a lot of interesting data. It should put some of your doubts to rest.

Actually, the flood is the best explanation of a geographical phenomenon.

LINK
^ For starters.
And for more questions on the flood; FLOOD Q&As

Well, the Bible does seem to suggest that God created.

The word shamayim is used in the Bible to refer to the astronomical universe. The word itself is connected with the phrase stretched out eleven times in the Old Testament (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zachariah 12:1). The concept here is that the cosmos is not static but the verb natah is used in an active participle form indicating that the process is ongoing. You do not have to be a Hebrew scholar to understand the concept. The word used in Genesis 1:1 to describe the creation is the Hebrew word bara. This word is never used in reference to something a human can do. Seven times in the Old Testament, it is used in reference to the creation (Genesis 1:1; 2:3-4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; and 45:15). Hebrews 11:3 states that the cosmos we can see is made out of things which we cannot see. Numerous passages indicate that God is the sole source of the cosmos, further supporting God as the creator. (see Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17).

"God's nature is good. He is not evil. He cannot sin and He can do no wrong. All that the Lord does is right and just. But, that does not mean that we always understand what God does or why He does it. After all, His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways. So, does God do good or bad to people? First of all, good and bad are relative. He is good to all in that He gives them rain, air, food, and life (Matt. 5:43-48). He is good to all in that He provided His Son as a sacrifice for sin so that we could escape the judgment to come (John 3:16-17). But, when He sends a plague to wipe out a crop (Pharaoh in Egypt), is that good or bad? From our perspective, it would seem bad to allow such a terrible thing to happen, let alone cause it to happen. But since God is not bad, what He does, though tough to understand sometimes, is right. For example, it was right to send the plague upon the Egyptians. They were holding the Jewish people prisoner. Was it loving to the Egyptians? Not really? Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely.
God moves through history carrying out various judgments. Doing so does not mean He is not good or loving. Consider a judge who is a very kind and forgiving man. When a criminal is found guilty, he must pass the judgment upon him, even if that punishment is harmful to the criminal. Does it mean that the judge is not loving or any less loving? Not at all. It means that the judge has acted righteously, according to the Law.
So too with God. He is right and just. He acts according to Law. The Laws that He has given are a reflection of His holy and righteous character. That is why it is wrong to lie, steal, etc. To sin against God is to incur His wrath since that sin is an affront to His holy character. The very fact that He so often withholds His judgment upon us is a very loving and good thing to do. However, when He does allow judgment to come through, He is just as good and loving. But, He is exercising His righteousness for a purpose. In His sovereign will to carry history to its designed conclusion (Acts 4:2,8) He delivers righteous judgment to those who oppose Him in sinfulness. This is good and right to do. Does God bring good and bad upon people? Yes He does. The problem is our perspective. To us it sometimes appears as bad. To God it is righteous."- http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
___________
Now, consider this: An archaeologist digs in the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, the archaeologist tells us, from this little old piece of clay, so much about the civilization that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell us about the types of ovens, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert. Did this archaeologist ever see the civilization that produced this pot? How does he know that it ever existed? He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to color it and make it look beautiful.
Design = Designer. Only a fool would believe that a web site could create itself in cyberspace without the intervention of a programmer, even though all the ingredients exist there. The Bible sums it up best; "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." (Psalms 14:1)

I'll try to reply to some more tomorrow, when I can find some free time.

 

*sigh* Did you COMPLETELY MISS Genesis, where man is spontaneously compiled out of dust, and THEN women are made from a rib bone?

If he never saw a sea, how could he write about it? And have you never heard of a current? That's probably what he was referring to.

Besides, attributing a requirement of some special knowledge to account for this verse assumes the ancient Hebrews were idiots. Knowledge of a spherical earth is ancient, and with it no edge for water to spill over. It is theologically reasonable to assume that God is not constantly creating new water [Gen. 2:3]. It is easy to see mists rising from waters and rain coming from clouds. A water cycle would be difficult not to deduce.

The fact that you think everyone thought the earth was flat until the 16th century betrays a certain lack of historical knowledge. Please go study Ancient Greece. Furthermore, odds are they referred to an eclipse.

Once again, study ancient astronomy, and weep. Second, Earth is NOT a circle, IT IS A SPHERE. A CIRCLE CAN BE FLAT. A PIZZA PIE IS FLAT AND CIRCULAR. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Job also talks about hail and lightning being held in storehouses in the clouds, in addition to pillars. Furthermore, Atlas was from Greek myth.

Job 38:4-7: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Maybe Solomon noticed an ant carrying grain. It's hardly a difficult concept.

Even Egyptians could figure out wind patterns.

I don't know why you repeated an argument.

And since when is this unique to the Bible? It's fairly common knowledge that such behavior can positvely effect your health.

You do realise that the very first book of the Bible contradicts thermodynamics, right?

Uhhhh then where did God come from?

So if you can't just create matter and energy out of nothing, then how did God do it?


... OH MY GOD. You were copy and pasting from ICR.org?! LMFAO!!!

I've read that site. It is an amateurish collection of pseudoscientific nonsense written by people who try to copy the literary style of scientific papers without understanding their content. Its most amusing claim by far is that Noah's Ark could fit all of the animals because there were a lot fewer species back then, and then they began to speciate once they got off the Ark, thus admitting that evolutionary speciation is possible. Then they turn around and scream in the rest of their website that it is not. That is simply comedic brilliance.

Lets take a look at a few other quotes from your "accurate" book...

Job 38:12-15: "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken."

Job 38:28: "Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew?"
Two more questions, two more easy answers. Rain has no father, since it's the simple result of saturated air cooling down and the moisture precipitating out as a result. Dew also has no father, since it's the simple result of condensation. Two more questions which betray staggering ignorance on his part.

Job 38:31-32: "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?"
Yet another meaningless question. The constellations are vast collections of stars, not the mythical symbols we've chosen to assign to them. Orion has no "cords" holding it in place, the constellations exist regardless of season, and neither the Bear or its cubs are being "led" anywhere. Their motion is dictated by simple momentum, not God's instructions. Yet again, God tries to take credit for phenomena which we now understand to be perfectly natural and much different than what he described.

Oh and then of course THERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY OF A GLOBAL FLOOD.

No, the Bible is NOT scientifically accurate.

 

Woah woah woah, wait, wait... the Bible is one-hundred percent accurate and scientifically sound?

Alright that settles it.

Neph. Tomorrow night. You, me, my place. We're building an ark, man, and we're taking with us two of every animal and a couple of girls. Then, when it's all done and built, we'll just wait for the ice caps to melt and flood the Earth. Then it'll be just us, the females and all them cooky, crazy animals...

Or we could always... y'know... summon forth plagues of wild animals and water-turning-into-blood or locusts and such by the will of God...

Talk to burning bushes that talk back...

Sacrifice our first born sons, whenever they come along...

Nail some guy to a couple of two-by-fours and watch him rise from the dead...

And of course communicate with countless supernatural beings that we'll later invite to a local pub for a round of pool and some drinks.

Sounds like a plan to me.

 

You quoted ICR.org. I'm THANKFUL for that limit, it put an end to that ridiculous claptrap.

Read this: http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/bcodedbk.htm

In fact, go here too: http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/bible.html

You can even find the assassination of Ghandi in Moby **** with the same code; does this make Moby **** a holy and incredibly prophetic book?

*sigh* You ignored the fact that there isn't enough water for the flood, or the sudden removal of said water, or anything else I pointed out.

Even the greeks had theories about everything being made of things too small to be seen by the naked eye.

Why are you still trying to use the Bible for proof of what God did? That's circular logic.

Actually, Genesis provides support that good and evil are seperate from God.
("Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." This also implies that man has reached moral equality...)

Provided you subscribe to the theory that he did; whereas the theory that Jesus was actually here to empathically teach God human morals is more plausible.

Of course, if you believe the Bible 100%, God could have just picked up the Jews and relocated them to the desert and prevented the Egyptians from pursuing. Furthermore, God "hardened Pharaohs heart" to allow for more plagues. How is this good? He CREATED a reason to plague civilians.

Of course using your rationale, sandman, the 9/11 attacks were the right thing to do absolutely.

Judges are supposed to be impartial. God obviously isn't if he has a chosen people. Are you really this daft?

Oh, you mean like the bit about KILLING YOUR SON IF HE IS DISOBEDIENT, or cascades of other sickening, "just" laws?

Uhhhhh, laws against stealing, killing and even lieing are hardly unique to ancient hebrew society...

He didn't just deduce it all in the wild, he had to have taken it back for testing.

Ok, just go away. You HAVE to be a troll at this point. Or just INCREDIBLY stupid.

Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, etc.

Anyway, if the Designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?

 

Funny how Man is made up of the basic elements of the earth, ne?

It wasn’t proven until the 16th century.

Must have been inspired by some one then, huh?

The concept of the water cycle, involving evaporation, condensation and precipitation was not generally accepted until the 16/17th century, 3000 years after scripture!

Hebrew has no specific word for sphere. “Circle” is accepted as a spherical shape. And don’t abuse the cap lock key.

Damn.
I thought they were stored in the clouds as water vapor.

Indeed. A popular belief at the time the Bible was written. Further proof the Bible leans away from what was considered fact at that time.

Well, a lot of people around that time used raw sewage for medication. So I doubt it.

No

OMG! ‘/0|_| 4774(|< 73|-| (4|o5!!!11!!!
So ICR, a site who’s articles are written by Ph.D.s; is utterly false because of the scientific falsity that you have pointed out….. Wait! That’s right, you didn’t!

No, they subscribe to microevolution.-
As every one is aware, dog breeders for centuries have produced so-called "purebred" dogs that can be quite striking in their differences. For example, what scientist from 2000 years in the future, would correctly identify a fossil of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane as being the same species?

Within our DNA is the ability to slightly change, do to outside stressors and such.

And when that happens, our genetic code will hit an “on-off” switch(So to speak), causing the organism to undergo minor changes that will give it a greater ability to deal with these stresses. Evolutionists state that “macroevolution is microevolution writ large",(As you do) which is, over millions of years, microevolutionary changes will lead to the species evolving into a completely new, more advanced species. Like fish evolving into four-footed animals. However, intraspecific microevolution does not result in transpecific macroevolution for Microevolutionary changes only go so far before hitting a “ceiling,” above which no changes occur.

By your implication: Genes "re-shuffle" themselves in an uncountable number of ways to change an organism to a different spices. You don’t believe in microevolution, right?

However, genetics wouldn't allow the changes caused by a re-arrangement of pre-existing genetic information to go beyond a certain point. There are genetic boundaries to variation, and it lies between the species level and the family level.

Mutations are needed, and information is always lost during mutations. And there haven’t been a helpful mutation to date.

Even evolutionist acknowledge the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

But you know all about evolution. For you single-handedly discredited a site with years of PhD research backing it up, wow!

How can I reply when you don’t list them????
List them, then we’ll see.

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/10

You quoted the very thing that answers your question.
LINK

Their design is formed by the forces that created them.

 

Sorry, I'm only going to pick on this thing right here.

It was proven by several people in the time of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. The big thing was, the people in Egypt could see all the way to the bottom of their wells at noon on the longest day of the year, while the Greeks could not; they still had some shadow being cast. Hence, there had to be some sort of curvature to the Earth, hence it was not flat. This was subsequently thrown away after the fall of the Roman empire, thanks to the Dark Ages. People lost the knowledge of those periods, and thus the knowledge that the Earth wasn't flat. I think I heard somewhere that Aristotle had even calculated the radius of the Earth rather closely (that may just be hearsay, but I remember something like that).

 

Since when did I ever propose that the Greek element theory was right?

Keep talking.

Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle.


Eccl. 1:7 does not describe the water cycle. It merely says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

I do not accept stand-ins. How do you know they intended for it to mean sphere when earlier books in the bible described the earth as flat and circular (not unlike a pizza pie)?

I daresay yelling is a far sight better than making poorly constructed arguments.

Uh. You realise I quoted that because you seem to think the Bible is 100% true and scientifically accurate, right? I know that it's "stored" in the clouds as water vapor; I was pointing out a flaw in your argument.

Yeah, given that the Bible also makes comments about the Earth having foundations and pillars, it is COMPLETELY different! Moron.

And the Hebrews were much more advanced? Of course not.

Well it does, via spontaneous creation.

I fail to see how "LMFAO" which is a fairly well accepted acronym translates into insane, blathering l33tspeak.

[EDIT]Particularly when you yourself use LOL in an earlier post.[/EDIT]

I could care less if it's written by Ph.D.s. That's an appeal to authority right there and your position as a debate forum member is weakened by it.

I pointed out a contradiction in their beliefs, jackass. If you're too blind to see that, go home.

[EDIT] Of course, if you would like to take the time out of your life to debunk an entire site, I invite you to take a trip to http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/index.shtml and debunk EVERYTHING.[/EDIT]

[/QUOTE]Mutations are needed, and information is always lost during mutations. And there haven’t been a helpful mutation to date.[/QUOTE]

Ok, just... just don't bother coming here anymore. You're clearly poorly versed in evolutionary debate fact and fiction. Mutations CAN add information, and as far as helpful mutation goes, are you simply ignorant to the new strains of bacteria that eat manmade toxins which didn't exist half a century ago? I think the ability to capitalize on a new resource is a wonderful benefit.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

I don't really have to because it's poorly written, self contradictory, and talkorigins.org is a far better resource AND non-biased at that. Of course, given your "knowledge" of evolutionary debate, I'm surprised you don't know this.

Now it's obvious you haven't even read through the thread fully, because I've posted the same link at least a couple times. But just because you're clearly too lazy to do this, here is the link AGAIN.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

And this is good for...?

That did a poor job explaining it. *points to his link*

*shrugs* They were still "designed" by nature; why is it that the universe could not have in essence done this? If the universe requires a creator, why does the creator not need to be created himself? If you are proposing that a sentient omnipotent being just suddenly sprang into existence or somehow has always existed, why is it a stretch to hypothesize that the universe, not necessarily in it's current form or even anything resembling the current form, could have done the same?

 

Hell no.

µ83® £33¯|¯ !5 73|-| ¯|¯3><7 j00 ©4/\//\/¤7 |233|)!!!!111!!!

Sorry, I don’t see many people use the one with the ‘F’ in it. I wanted to know what kind of leet you use.

You’re one to talk about Fallacious Arguments. Since post one; you’ve been Poisoning The Wells.

It cannot be claimed that the immunity/resource-consumption mechanisms in bacteria constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations.

And again: That comes down into changes within a kind. Which is Biblical, and scientifically proven.

www.trueorigns.com

Is a much better source.

Well, nothing. Since you clearly didn’t read it. >_>

It’s hard for me to counter when you use no data. *Points to his pointing*.

Eventually, every universe will die. Weather through a: Hot Death, Static Death or Cold Death. Since the universe has an ending; it must have had a beginning. Some one had to set the wheel in motion. I can’t explain how God came to be; but I can point to his deeds.

 

Given that it proposes spontaneous creation of every single drop of water on Earth...

Well, that's just too bad if you're inexperienced like that, but kindly refrain from making a total *** of yourself over one letter.

I suppose I would be if I didn't provide rationale for my laughing at ICR.org, complete with an example.

...And how else did you expect it to suddenly arise? Of course it happened via mutation. If you can tell me how they suddenly began to capitalize on new resources when they couldn't before, I'd like to know. Without mutation, of course.

Furthermore the link I gave shows other examples of mutation adding data. Of course you would know that if you bothered to read it.

Hey dumbass, notice how I was refuting your idiotic claim that a mutation cannot add information or be beneficial? Why the sudden shift to "oh its biblically supported"? Why the refusal to admit I have you beat on that point?

In fact, why are you ignoring large clumps of arguments now? Are you too rude to even acknowledge defeat where applicable?

*reads, rolls eyes* No it isn't. It has an obvious bias, whereas talkorigins.org has no bias, be it creationist or non.

I did read it, but it doesn't change the fact that the bible code is purely a numbers game and you could find a cluster just as large in another book eventually.

...Did you even -read- the link about the flood I supplied? It had plenty of data.

How do you know it doesn't go in a cycle, just living and dying over and over?

How do you know your god specifically did it? How do you know it wasn't a group of gods, or gods father who god betrayed and took the credit of? Where are all these other designers? Are you proposing that a sentient, omnipotent being just IS? Why is it that if this being could do it, the universe couldn't?

If we must assume it took a divine spark to create the universe, that doesn't necessarily mean it was your god. Where are your arguments for Cosmic Orgasm, for Universe Birth, for "Earth Divers", for Cosmic Eggs?

Oh wait, I forgot, you're a religious egocentric! Silly me!

 

…….. What?
I don’t think even you read the Bible verse you stated. Genesis 2:5- 6 says, “…For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, …but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." (NKJV) The canopy produced a temperate climate throughout Earth; it was a global greenhouse. This was conducive to immense vegetation, both in size and amount.

No, I obliterated your alleged “point”. It was rather easy, given the sheer emptiness of your skull.

Now now, don’t get your panties in a bundle. I didn’t call you a name when you molested the cap lock key.

Pull your head out of your ***. You would claim anything and everything that contradicts your point is bias. If you think there is anything that is not even a little bias, you’re either stoned, or dumber then I gave you credit for. Every thing is a little bias, especially your beloved talkorigins. What matters is that they’re facts to back them up.

Yeah! You’re right!
The odds against a cluster similar to the Isaiah 53 one appearing by chance reflect the possibility that either the above cluster, or any one of 437,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 clusters is 2.3 followed by 212 zeroes.
But that doesn’t mean anything. They’re just numbers, right?

Oh STFU. I don’t have time to slow down to pick you out of your puddle of delusion. Try to keep up:

No, I never said mutation/Macroevolution is Biblically valid. Two post ago, I said within DNA is a wide range of physical attributes. These changes within a kind is mircoevolution. There is not the genetic material for a crab claw! For evolution to occur, there must be new genetic information(i.e. Mutations).

Read

Read

Really? Do tell.

There wasn’t even a page of information in that link.
Oh noes! A half-paged attack on the definition of information!!!11!!

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Don’t flatter yourself by assuming I give a Damn about your opinion of me. Whatever gets your fat *** sleep at night. I don’t care.

Actually, God would supercede our plane of existence, whereas the universe in part of the physical world. So no.

 

That's what he was saying was countering the laws of thermodynamics.

If you don't give a damn about what he thinks of you, why do you assume he would?

It's called yelling, because you were obviously too self-absorbed to pay attention otherwise.

You're right, human beings cannot write something without some bias. It's impossible. However, there are plenty of sources that are a whole lot less biased than the ones you cited.

Exactly. I bet I could rearrange the letters in the same way the Bible Code did and find something about Charlie Sheen riding to the moon on a pale-white griffin. Doesn't mean a thing.

This is assuming the one you're arguing against is incorrect, which is a rhetorical fallacy, only one of many you've pulled in this debate. (appeal to authority, ad hominem argument, etc.)

You do realize the mutations required to form a crab claw took place over several thousand years, right? These "mutations" that occurred were merely what is called natural selection. The crabs with certain attributes that led to claws lived longer than those without, so they had a higher chance to reproduce and propigate the genes responsible.

Somehow, I don't see this as a valid argument, probably because it doesn't make any sense in the context in which it was used.

You know, he's providing proof to back his arguments up that comes from multiple sources, while you seem to be choosing the same two.

That doesn't explain how you know the Christian God is the one which did all this. How do you know that it wasn't the Hindu pantheon? Or perhaps the ancient Egyptians had it right? That was the question I saw in there.

 

Baph tackled this for me. Thanks, Baph!

I'm not the one who believes the Bible is 100% scientifically accurate.

If you must know, it was the shift key.

And talkorigins uses facts to back it up, and willingly gives creationists counterarguments in its site. The fact that these creationist arguments are defeated is why it looks "biased".

Yep. Also I'm intrigued at how you arrived at these numbers. Do tell.

No. You dropped certain arguments without even saying "ok, you got me there" or even just continued to blindly continue with an argument despite counterpoints.

I'm not the one being countered by every other active poster in this thread, nor am I deluded into thinking the bible is 100% scientifically accurate.

Once again, Baph got this.

Very small gradual changes in each generation granting tolerance to the toxins, obviously, and given the reproductive rate of said organisms it wouldn't take -that- long from our standpoint. Its the same reason why bug spray companies have to change formulas every few years - the bugs become resistant due to genetically susceptible bugs dying out, leaving only the resistant ones to breed.

This was refuted in an earlier link I posted, showing examples of a mutation adding informatioin. READ.

I was making a statement of fact. You -are- a religious egocentric.

Prove it. Prove it was your God. Prove God supercedes our plane of existence.

 

Next thing you know, he's going to start telling us that the Lord Of The Rings trilogy is historically accurate. You can't explain how he started, but you can point out his deeds? Crimedy. And, let me not mention that you are saying the Bible is one hundred percent accurate, however you practically admit to the fact that it incorrectly portrayed the water cycle, thermodynamics, etc. Crikey, make up your mind, man.

Well at least we now know God really does condone sexism and slavery.. that explains anything.. but so much for masturbating. :\ Looks like anyone who's pleasured themselves is going straight on to Hell.

Plus, you have to love the accuracy of a book that was constantly misinterpretted, mistranslated, and all around ****ed with since the beginning, over and over again, time after time. Pure genius and utter hilarity.

[EDIT] And, I too, would like to see you prove that it was your "OMF ALMIGHTY G0DZ0RZ". C'mon. Try me. [/EDIT]

 

Hi guys!

Hi all! How've you been?

OK um maybe i posted something a couple of years ago in this thread (sorry for being away so much time ^^;; ), but Amon Sena has based his last post
on ONE basis:

That "The Bible must be interpreted literally with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever, not taking the context into account". In other words, what Amon Sena just rebated is not what the bible *means*, but what it means "according to fundamentalists".

In other words, for those who know the terms, he is assumming that if God exists, the sole rule of faith is the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura anyone?).

Now what If the Bible is NOT to be interpreted literally? And certainly, not as a scientific book, but about faith and morals ONLY? And that long studies (taking into account the historical context, what some words meant in the biblical times, etc) should be applied carefully before interpreting passages on salvation/damnation?

After applying these "filters", we could arrive to shocking conclusions:

1) Non-christians can be saved, no matter what their beliefs or sexual habits are, but according to their own conscience, specially regarding good deeds (read Matthew 25)

2) The word was not created in 6 days
3) Christians could be damned if they preach but don't love - Yes, christians can be saved, but "not by faith alone" (James 2:24)

And with more studies, we would find out that the "terrible threatening and elitist God" which has been created by some imaginative minds, is nothing but a myth. But the REAL God is much more full of love and compassion.

Anyway, I read some stuff on the Bible Code. Man! The guy who invented that really found a way to sell his books! Ugh. I hate frauds like that. Thanks to Neph_x for providing us the skeptic links on the Bible code.

About finding "physical proof" that God exists, there is NONE. God's existance cannot be proved or disproved based solely on material data. So whoever's been trying to prove so, he's so deluded.

About the Flood, what about the account of Gilgamesh? I watched in the Discovery Channel that the flood could very possibly have happened in the Black Sea. So that's a good support for the Flood in Genesis.

Ok, my 2 cents. ^_^