Attention Atheists: How Was The Earth Created?

[John Lemmon]

Well that just shows how science and religion are similar, we both just don't know.
This thread was made for you atheists to post proof of how the earth was formed. Don't get all upset just because you're so inarticulate that can't explain yourself. Or that this thread has made you question your own beliefs for the first time ever.
Jeez, atheists are the most unhappy people...

Interestingly (or not) I was stationed with a "John Lemon" while in the AF.

Wrong again, religion thinks it knows for a fact how everything came about and why.
And I'm agnostic, not atheist. So wrong again.
And this thread has made me realize even more that religious people are whacked out and logically impaired: Can't prove something? There's proof of god!
What a buncha retards.

 

[Care4all]

Genesis 2:15

15 The LORD God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, (P) 17 but you must not eat [l] from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." (Q) 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him." (R) 19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. (S) And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the sky, and to every wild animal; but for the man [m] no helper was found who was like him.​

Clearly man was there when god "formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky" since he brought them to man to name.

do you think man and god are the same age what do you think he was doing years before he came up with ideal to put us here.

masturbating. I'm not the one who believes in god. The bible mentions creating the earth and then goes straight into creating man and animals. You tell me why it doesn't mention anything in between.

maybe because you refuse to read the Bible or just don't know how to read it? Not trying to be mean here, but the bible mentions PLENTY OF ''IN BETWEEN''?

animals and man were the absolute last thing genesis 1, the creation story mentions, with a great deal of ''in between'', not fully formed, in darkness, beginning of light sharing darkness, water coming up from the earth, mist, then rain from the sky, then life...with vegetation, then the settling of the galaxy and our 24 hour days and moderate climate to support life in the water, then birds and creatures on the ground, then animals, then man.


i just have no idea how you can even say what you said n4, that there was nothing in between earth created and man created in the Bible?

care

 

[N4mddissent]

do you think man and god are the same age what do you think he was doing years before he came up with ideal to put us here.

masturbating. I'm not the one who believes in god. The bible mentions creating the earth and then goes straight into creating man and animals. You tell me why it doesn't mention anything in between.

maybe because you refuse to read the Bible or just don't know how to read it? Not trying to be mean here, but the bible mentions PLENTY OF ''IN BETWEEN''?

animals and man were the absolute last thing genesis 1, the creation story mentions, with a great deal of ''in between'', not fully formed, in darkness, beginning of light sharing darkness, water coming up from the earth, mist, then rain from the sky, then life...with vegetation, then the settling of the galaxy and our 24 hour days and moderate climate to support life in the water, then birds and creatures on the ground, then animals, then man.


i just have no idea how you can even say what you said n4, that there was nothing in between earth created and man created in the Bible?

care

Did you read the portion from Genesis 2 that I quoted earlier?

 

[Care4all]

There must be an evolutionary reason for faith.

Faith is a sort of very strong belief even in the absence of evidence. Without the capacity to have faith we'd be utterly cynical and would doubt, possibly to the point of psychopathology, everything. That would mean no cooperation between humans, I mean, if we doubted everything surely we'd doubt the good intentions of our fellows? That would mean doom for humans. So we've evolved so that we are capable of having faith, of believing in something even though there's no evidence to support it. But that's not to argue for gullibility being useful to us, too much gullibility would also be pretty bad for our species.

As I've learned there can be a lot of good that comes from faith - as in faith in myself, in my abilities, etc. But you can replace that with confidence, or trust, or belief despite stacked odds against, or many other words.

froggy is talking about religious faith, and why is there a need for that? If we all knew God was the one and only omnipotent, omniscient creator and ruler of the Universe, why couldn't we still have faith in ourselves and live in a much better world because of the lack of conflict in whether God exists or not, or whose God is the right one, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Who would commit sins if they absolutely, 100% knew without a doubt that God knows what they're doing or thinking, or going to do or think and there is no chance of getting away with it?

but why argue at all? let others have Faith in God, while you choose not to?

why do you and others feel it necessary to preach to us on how stupid and wrong we are? why not leave us alone, give us our constitutional right of freedom of religion, being able to choose what god or sun or moon we want to worship or give praise to or NOT give praise to?

WHY the constant PREACHING from atheists and agnostics, one thread after another on the topic? I realize this was started by someone of faith, but most religious threads are started by religion bashers....and you know it!

I WILL NEVER convert my faith to your beliefs, NEVER...so you and others, especially the 'others' at this point colorado, that are posting merely to thrash out at those who are religious, and saying they are just stupid, among other lovely names.....i'd put my, IQ, knowledge, intellect, and common sense, up against theirs... any day of the week!

Care

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wrong again, religion thinks it knows for a fact how everything came about and why.

Science thinks it knows for a fact how everything came about and why but continually discovers that their previous ideas were wrong in part or total. What a bunch of retards!

And I'm agnostic, not atheist. So wrong again.

So if you really believe that it is impossible to prove if God exists or not then why are you posting in this thread? I clearly stated in the thread title "Atheists...".

And this thread has made me realize even more that religious people are whacked out and logically impaired: Can't prove something? There's proof of god!
What a buncha retards.

And this thread has made me realize even more that atheist people are whacked out and logically impaired: Can't answer the question? Attack the questioner!

By the way you still haven't given any explanation of how the earth was formed. Could you stay on topic please?

Fail.

 

[John Lemmon]

Wrong again fart breath. Science is continually looking for more and more answers, religion has stopped looking a long time ago.
What the fuck do atheists have to do with how the earth was formed? Scientists have pretty much solved that riddle, being atheist has nothing to do with it.
So what if an atheist doesn't know how gravity came to be? wtf is the relevance of that anyways? Why should atheists even know that in the first place?
Go back to reading the bible, you're running out of things to think.

 

[Care4all]

Who said religion has stopped looking? It was a priest who first said in the westernized world that the Earth revolved around the sun....

the catholic church of today encourages the Sciences to find out what they can....? so please tell us, and be SPECIFIC which christian denominations you are speaking about...can you AT LEAST back up THAT?

Copernicus realized that if the Sun were at the center of the Solar System, and the planets revolved around the Sun, then the planets always moved in the same direction. Copernicus knew that his idea was radical and that it would be unpopular. Friends who heard of his discovery pleaded with him to make his findings public. Fearing arrest or worse punishment, Copernicus waited thirty-six years to publish his theories.

Copernicus, a Roman Catholic priest by the end of his life, finally sent a copy of his manuscript, entitled De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, to a Lutheran printer in 1543 as he was dying. The Lutheran Church did not support a heliocentric Solar System model, but would be less punitive than the Roman Catholic Church.

Copernicus received his published book back from the printer on May 24, 1543 — the last day of his life. His radical idea that the planets revolved around the Sun (not the Earth), backed up with analysis of observations, began what we call today the Copernican Revolution.

 

[froggy]

the answer: is one day we will know for sure, when we die. either you see god (whether your saved or not) and he'll tell you or they'll be nothing and it won't matter.

 

[John Lemmon]

Who said religion has stopped looking? It was a priest who first said in the westernized world that the Earth revolved around the sun....

the catholic church of today encourages the Sciences to find out what they can....? so please tell us, and be SPECIFIC which christian denominations you are speaking about...can you AT LEAST back up THAT?

Copernicus realized that if the Sun were at the center of the Solar System, and the planets revolved around the Sun, then the planets always moved in the same direction. Copernicus knew that his idea was radical and that it would be unpopular. Friends who heard of his discovery pleaded with him to make his findings public. Fearing arrest or worse punishment, Copernicus waited thirty-six years to publish his theories.

Copernicus, a Roman Catholic priest by the end of his life, finally sent a copy of his manuscript, entitled De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, to a Lutheran printer in 1543 as he was dying. The Lutheran Church did not support a heliocentric Solar System model, but would be less punitive than the Roman Catholic Church.

Copernicus received his published book back from the printer on May 24, 1543 — the last day of his life. His radical idea that the planets revolved around the Sun (not the Earth), backed up with analysis of observations, began what we call today the Copernican Revolution.

sorry it was galileo.
the bible says the earth was created in 6 days, which is false. Ask today's pope how long it took. He'll say 6 days. Totally stuck in the past.

 

[Care4all]

Who said religion has stopped looking? It was a priest who first said in the westernized world that the Earth revolved around the sun....

the catholic church of today encourages the Sciences to find out what they can....? so please tell us, and be SPECIFIC which christian denominations you are speaking about...can you AT LEAST back up THAT?

Copernicus realized that if the Sun were at the center of the Solar System, and the planets revolved around the Sun, then the planets always moved in the same direction. Copernicus knew that his idea was radical and that it would be unpopular. Friends who heard of his discovery pleaded with him to make his findings public. Fearing arrest or worse punishment, Copernicus waited thirty-six years to publish his theories.

Copernicus, a Roman Catholic priest by the end of his life, finally sent a copy of his manuscript, entitled De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, to a Lutheran printer in 1543 as he was dying. The Lutheran Church did not support a heliocentric Solar System model, but would be less punitive than the Roman Catholic Church.

Copernicus received his published book back from the printer on May 24, 1543 — the last day of his life. His radical idea that the planets revolved around the Sun (not the Earth), backed up with analysis of observations, began what we call today the Copernican Revolution.

sorry it was galileo.
the bible says the earth was created in 6 days, which is false. Ask today's pope how long it took. He'll say 6 days. Totally stuck in the past.

no, it was capernicus, galileo came after capernicus's initial writings.

thus it is called the capernican revolution

His radical idea that the planets revolved around the Sun (not the Earth), backed up with analysis of observations, began what we call today the Copernican Revolution.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wrong again fart breath. Science is continually looking for more and more answers, religion has stopped looking a long time ago.
What the fuck do atheists have to do with how the earth was formed? Scientists have pretty much solved that riddle, being atheist has nothing to do with it.
So what if an atheist doesn't know how gravity came to be? wtf is the relevance of that anyways? Why should atheists even know that in the first place?
Go back to reading the bible, you're running out of things to think.

More insults and no answers from JL.

Fail.

sorry it was galileo.
the bible says the earth was created in 6 days, which is false. Ask today's pope how long it took. He'll say 6 days. Totally stuck in the past.

John, go back and re-read the rules of this thread:

"You may not use any reference to the Holy Book or any other Religious book for that matter because you believe it to be false, written by deluded individuals at best right?
I would prefer only Atheists chime in but you wishy-washy "Spiritualists" may also posit your "feelings" about the matter if you wish".

I will amend that to include Agnostics such as yourself.

Double, Lemon Sucking Fail for you!

 

[gcomeau]

Calling me a retard doesn't explain how the earth was created. But I can see how the subject causes immense conflict within your own mind as it does most Liberals.

Since you seem to have missed it the first time:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-how-was-the-earth-created-8.html#post1479768

Would you mind terribly answering that question so I know if it's worth my time discussing this topic with you?

Mad Scientist... perhaps you missed this again, let me try this one more time. That link there? It's to some questions I asked you earlier. Would you care to respond to them or are you uninterested in seriously discussing this issue?

 

[amrchaos]

Some great designer took a dump and called it Cleveland.

The rest of the world formed from its dripping ooze.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Mad Scientist... perhaps you missed this again, let me try this one more time. That link there? It's to some questions I asked you earlier. Would you care to respond to them or are you uninterested in seriously discussing this issue?

Sorry I missed your question but I wasn't trying to evade you either. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
From your link:

Science doesn't prove things, it reaches provisional conclusions based on the preponderance of available evidence.

Faith does the very same thing.

I can make my own conclusions based on what I see and understand correct? The religion haters of this world act as if we've never heard of science. Well guess what? We grew up in the same society as you did but we came to different conclusions as you. We took the same courses in Biology, Astronomy, Math, History, Language as you did. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that different people would come to different conclusions after "preponderance of the same evidence?

Why is that so hard to understand?

Do all Police Detectives reach the same conclusions based on "preponderance of the evidence"? No! Training, Maturity, Experience, any number of variables could come into play in the decisions they reach.
It's the same for all people. Yes, groups of people may come to the exact same conclusions but that doesn't make them correct does it?

Atheists have come to the conclusion after "preponderance of the evidence" that God doesn't exist. But those same Atheists don't seem to understand that other people can come to different conclusions based on the preponderance of that very same evidence!

What massive arrogance a person must have to believe that their viewpoint is the one and only truth!

 

[John Lemmon]

So tell me Mad, what does atheism/agnosticism and knowing how the earth was formed have to do with one another? So if an atheist says: I don't know, what does that mean for you?
Agnostic as I understand it means to me: someone who sees no proof of god, so therefore doesn't believe there is one, but leaves the door open in case some day someone comes up with some hard evidence, because in this vast universe, anything in theory can be possible, but you just have to find real proof for it to actually exist, you can't just say "well, you can't prove god's not there", that would be illogical. In other words, a realist.

As opposed the a god person who is convinced that an invisible being for which they have no proof created the world... In other words, a self-deluded person.

 

[gcomeau]

Mad Scientist... perhaps you missed this again, let me try this one more time. That link there? It's to some questions I asked you earlier. Would you care to respond to them or are you uninterested in seriously discussing this issue?

Sorry I missed your question but I wasn't trying to evade you either. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
From your link:

Science doesn't prove things, it reaches provisional conclusions based on the preponderance of available evidence.

Faith does the very same thing.

Only if you're referring to a specific type of faith. I wrote a post on the subject recently:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/86980-on-faith.html

And even when speaking of that type of faith specifically (mainly the first listed in that link... and certainly not the last), it does so in a considerably less rigorously defined manner. So no, it does not do the "very same" thing.

Now I'm going to decline to respond to your rant about how you don't think atheists aren't giving you the benefit of the doubt in your own consideration of the evidence or understanding of scientific principles since for one thing your personal complaints about how you may or may not have been treated by others on this subject is irrelevent to the substance of the question you asked, and for another it's not a subject I can actually speak to anyway since I'm not you and have no idea who you've interacted with or how those encounters went. So it would be a giant waste of time to dive down that particular rabbit hole.

What I am interested in is seeing some indication that you understand and acknowledge the difference between asking for evidentially supported conclusions, and insisting on absolute proof that can never possibly exist. If you are interested in the former then that is something we can certainly delve into greater detail on. If you only want the latter however you are going to be waiting an eternity. It doesn't exist, it never will, and science has never laid claim to it.

Now, do you want to discuss the available evidence pertaining to the manner in which the earth was formed and perform a detailed evaluation of what hypotheses it is and is not consistent with?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What massive arrogance a person must have to believe that their viewpoint is the one and only truth!

But isn't that exactly what your viewpoint is, Mad Scientist? That your God is the one and only God, and your Bible is the one and only holy word of God's prophets, that Jesus Christ is the one and only messiah, and that those who don't believe as you do will be rejected from the Gates of Heaven to burn forever in a fiery pit because what you believe is the one and only truth? In fact, isn't that the viewpoint of every monotheist alive? Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike? Those who do not believe what they believe are infidels? They are rejected by God, or Allah, or Yahweh?

 

[Mad Scientist]

What massive arrogance a person must have to believe that their viewpoint is the one and only truth!

But isn't that exactly what your viewpoint is, Mad Scientist? That your God is the one and only God, and your Bible is the one and only holy word of God's prophets, that Jesus Christ is the one and only messiah, and that those who don't believe as you do will be rejected from the Gates of Heaven to burn forever in a fiery pit because what you believe is the one and only truth? In fact, isn't that the viewpoint of every monotheist alive? Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike? Those who do not believe what they believe are infidels? They are rejected by God, or Allah, or Yahweh?

(I knew one of you would ask this question)
If that were true then why would I start a thread asking for proof that God didn't create the universe?

Fail.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Prove that the universe exists at all!

 

[Mad Scientist]

What I am interested in is seeing some indication that you understand and acknowledge the difference between asking for evidentially supported conclusions, and insisting on absolute proof that can never possibly exist. If you are interested in the former then that is something we can certainly delve into greater detail on. If you only want the latter however you are going to be waiting an eternity. It doesn't exist, it never will, and science has never laid claim to it.

This is just a slight twist on what was written earlier.

I believe God created the Universe yet I have no absolute proof. Guess what? Neither do you!

That's why it's called "faith".

The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe. The best they can do is:

"Maybe it was like this" to which I can agree, maybe it was like that. But until I have concrete, irrefutable proof otherwise...

Fail.