What's new

Creationists' theory in detail

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
The origin/creation of our universe is an example of a verifiable supernatural event - depending on your definition of supernatural.

Our universe is precisely fine tuned in many ways to allow for stars and life as we know it to exist. Our planet is fine tuned so that life on the surface of the earth could exist.

For example, the precise fine tuning of the expansion rate of our universe (Isaiah 40:22,26) allowed stars to exist, which allowed supernovas to exist which allowed elements other than Lithium and Hydrogen to exist .....

The Big Bang theory has some elements of truth to it (pun intended) but it does not explain many things including the crucial one: the actual origin of our universe.

Many scientists reject the law of conservation of matter and energy and the principle of cause and effect - some even claim our universe came from nothing!

I might add that Genesis 1:1 is accurate in stating both heaven(s) and earth have a beginning.

Btw - Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists - we reject some of their religious doctrines but we accept the Biblical account of creation.
Nothing in the formation of the universe comes anywhere close to proving supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
I sure hope you can quickly publish your version of the Bible correcting the mistakes.
but humans have souls
No they don't
That's the RINO crowd (Republicans In Name Only) posting in this thread. The Jews call them JINO. Maybe they're CINO, but in any case the same fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of every word of the Bible, to their modern interpretation of ancient writing, also deny the existence of the human soul.

Humans are sentient, self-conscious, thinking and speaking creatures, and therefore they have souls.

Whether the soul is immortal is a different matter (of faith, belief, etc.) outside the realm of natural science bound by considerations of physical matter, time, and space.
Your “.... because I say so”, claim to something you call a “soul” is completely unsupported. You haven’t even identified what this “soul” thing is.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are not the especial creation of the gods. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
Page 34 and still no “General Theory of Supernatural Creation
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
374
Points
155
I sure hope you can quickly publish your version of the Bible correcting the mistakes.
but humans have souls
No they don't
That's the RINO crowd (Republicans In Name Only) posting in this thread. The Jews call them JINO. Maybe they're CINO, but in any case the same fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of every word of the Bible, to their modern interpretation of ancient writing, also deny the existence of the human soul.

Humans are sentient, self-conscious, thinking and speaking creatures, and therefore they have souls.

Whether the soul is immortal is a different matter (of faith, belief, etc.) outside the realm of natural science bound by considerations of physical matter, time, and space.
We all have faith in something. I have faith in Jesus and the sola scriptura in the Bible. Thus, I know what happened in the past, real science backs me up, and can pray that I'll be part of rapture in the afterlife. I doubt you can say the same thing.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
I sure hope you can quickly publish your version of the Bible correcting the mistakes.
but humans have souls
No they don't
That's the RINO crowd (Republicans In Name Only) posting in this thread. The Jews call them JINO. Maybe they're CINO, but in any case the same fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of every word of the Bible, to their modern interpretation of ancient writing, also deny the existence of the human soul.

Humans are sentient, self-conscious, thinking and speaking creatures, and therefore they have souls.

Whether the soul is immortal is a different matter (of faith, belief, etc.) outside the realm of natural science bound by considerations of physical matter, time, and space.
We all have faith in something. I have faith in Jesus and the sola scriptura in the Bible. Thus, I know what happened in the past, real science backs me up, and can pray that I'll be part of rapture in the afterlife. I doubt you can say the same thing.
No, “we” don’t. I have trust and confidence as opposed to faith- belief without evidence.

I trust that nature will operate within the realms of rationality and reason because I have a supported history of evidence to support that trust.

Please dont feel a need to speak for others.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
I sure hope you can quickly publish your version of the Bible correcting the mistakes.
but humans have souls
No they don't
That's the RINO crowd (Republicans In Name Only) posting in this thread. The Jews call them JINO. Maybe they're CINO, but in any case the same fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of every word of the Bible, to their modern interpretation of ancient writing, also deny the existence of the human soul.

Humans are sentient, self-conscious, thinking and speaking creatures, and therefore they have souls.

Whether the soul is immortal is a different matter (of faith, belief, etc.) outside the realm of natural science bound by considerations of physical matter, time, and space.
We all have faith in something. I have faith in Jesus and the sola scriptura in the Bible. Thus, I know what happened in the past, real science backs me up, and can pray that I'll be part of rapture in the afterlife. I doubt you can say the same thing.
Hurt feelings, Jimmy?

“We” don’t feel a need to acknowledge you as the silly bouncer standing at the gates of the rapture.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
37,698
Reaction score
2,580
Points
1,155
no, I have been specific
Haha, no, you haven't. And you have declared everything that eve comes up to be evidence of the metaphysics you claim. Everything. You even admitted it. Has something changed?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
9,419
Reaction score
741
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Evolution happened long, long time ago from millions and billions of years. No rock or fossil can last that long.
Why do you say that? What would happen to it?
Stop believing in lies and use your common sense and physics. Weathering, chemical processes (water, ice, erosion), mechanical processes (internal and external pressures of the Earth such as magma, plate tectonics, gravity, etc.) all would cause the rocks and fossils to crack, crumble, and turn to dust. And we haven't even gotten to catastrophism that would occur during all that time. Earth itself would not be able to last that long. The evos want their cake and eat it, too.
Except the weathering and most chemical processes occur at or near the surface of the earth so buried fossils are protected. Magma would be local and obvious. Plate tectonics is a slow process that would bend and fold deeply buried rock layers but they would not crumble.

What it comes down to is that you need to believe these things since you interpret the Bible literally. Maybe you should interpret what is in front of you literally.
 

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
281
Points
95
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:



A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
You cannot get something from nothing
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.

Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.

Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary.
You could have fooled me.

And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.

God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
An earlier post on this thread has the poster writing about Paul. Here is a nonbeliever trying to refute Paul when Paul knew Jesus. So, now you're saying Paul never existed? OMG.

While I had a mother, I still cannot tell you at the end of the day who the very first person was that started the genealogical tree without faith. Neither can you explain the origin of the things you say exist. Yeah, they exist, but science can only hypothesize as to its origins. This ain't rocket science. You rely on faith just as much as I do.
You can't tell who your first ancestor was? Does that mean it requires faith to assume you had a first ancestor? I don't need a name or description to know it to be true. What you are suggesting is that since I don't know those things somehow the existence of that first ancestor requires faith. You said something about knowing your opponent's arguments. That is the god of gaps arguments.
You can only trace your lineage so far back where people don't dispute it. Check out the 8th Chapter of John in the Bible and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
281
Points
95
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:



A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
You cannot get something from nothing
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.

Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.

Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary.
You could have fooled me.

And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.

God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
Your standard of proof for existence - what you refer to as science has no explanation other than you know some things exist that you sense. You have every right to think that constitutes evidence. That, however does not necessarily make you right.

The Bible gives a logical explanation for the creation of man and our world. But, my view of evidence is in the fact that the Bible has a God that foretold the future in great detail... something your science cannot do. Neither can your science stop what the Bible foretold for the future. We have different standards. What you need to be thinking about is why it is so imperative for you to force me to accept your proposition. Oddly, the Bible predicts that people like you would do that. A wise man once remarked:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

There is a reason you're investing so much time trying to dodge, deflect and circumvent an uncomfortable truth while inferring something is wrong with those who see the same evidence you do and come to an opposite conclusion based on the facts. Matter exists. Of that there is no dispute. But, where did it come from? You don't know because you cannot imagine nothingness and neither can I.
There’s nothing logical about supernaturalism or the supernatural creation of man. Nothing logical about talking serpents. Nothing logical about the gods condemning all of humanity because a supernaturally created human failed a test the gods knew they would fail. The gods lied to A&E (not the cable network). How logical is it that dead men rise or seas part? It never happens in the natural, rational world.

As to the gods foretelling the future, I’m not sure where you get that. The all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were written by men, most of whom are unknown. There’s no indication that any of the gods wrote, dictated or had final editing rights to anything in the Bible. Claiming the Bible had Gods that foretold the future in great detail is simply not true.
Okay, first - With respect to "talking serpents," that was figurative language. Eve did not bite an apple and talk to a snake. If you understood the story, it would make sense to you:


Seas have parted and dead people have come back to life. You should talk to someone who has been declared dead and came back.

The Bible has told us in great detail of events to come and things that happened. Just because you have not been taught various interpretations and tested them does not prove your point.
 

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
281
Points
95
only one thing remains indisputable: You cannot get something from nothing. Time, space, matter... all of it had to have an origination point.
You don't know that. They may have always existed and only their forms have changed. Since we can't see what's on the other side of the BB we don't know. Yet. Maybe someday.
It's still a theory and that is a commonality between nonbelievers and believers... faith in what we think based upon the information we have
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,083
Reaction score
418
Points
85
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:



A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
You cannot get something from nothing
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.

Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.

Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary.
You could have fooled me.

And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.

God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
Your standard of proof for existence - what you refer to as science has no explanation other than you know some things exist that you sense. You have every right to think that constitutes evidence. That, however does not necessarily make you right.

The Bible gives a logical explanation for the creation of man and our world. But, my view of evidence is in the fact that the Bible has a God that foretold the future in great detail... something your science cannot do. Neither can your science stop what the Bible foretold for the future. We have different standards. What you need to be thinking about is why it is so imperative for you to force me to accept your proposition. Oddly, the Bible predicts that people like you would do that. A wise man once remarked:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

There is a reason you're investing so much time trying to dodge, deflect and circumvent an uncomfortable truth while inferring something is wrong with those who see the same evidence you do and come to an opposite conclusion based on the facts. Matter exists. Of that there is no dispute. But, where did it come from? You don't know because you cannot imagine nothingness and neither can I.
There’s nothing logical about supernaturalism or the supernatural creation of man. Nothing logical about talking serpents. Nothing logical about the gods condemning all of humanity because a supernaturally created human failed a test the gods knew they would fail. The gods lied to A&E (not the cable network). How logical is it that dead men rise or seas part? It never happens in the natural, rational world.

As to the gods foretelling the future, I’m not sure where you get that. The all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were written by men, most of whom are unknown. There’s no indication that any of the gods wrote, dictated or had final editing rights to anything in the Bible. Claiming the Bible had Gods that foretold the future in great detail is simply not true.
Okay, first - With respect to "talking serpents," that was figurative language. Eve did not bite an apple and talk to a snake. If you understood the story, it would make sense to you:


Seas have parted and dead people have come back to life. You should talk to someone who has been declared dead and came back.

The Bible has told us in great detail of events to come and things that happened. Just because you have not been taught various interpretations and tested them does not prove your point.
.
The Bible has told us in great detail of events to come and things that happened. Just because you have not been taught various interpretations and tested them does not prove your point.
the spoken religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty is nearly six words long - the triumph of good vs evil - your book only covers the latter without mention of the former in final conclusion. there is no possible means for survival through interpretation from any of the written documents as offered, good luck.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
374
Points
155
Evolution happened long, long time ago from millions and billions of years. No rock or fossil can last that long.
Why do you say that? What would happen to it?
Stop believing in lies and use your common sense and physics. Weathering, chemical processes (water, ice, erosion), mechanical processes (internal and external pressures of the Earth such as magma, plate tectonics, gravity, etc.) all would cause the rocks and fossils to crack, crumble, and turn to dust. And we haven't even gotten to catastrophism that would occur during all that time. Earth itself would not be able to last that long. The evos want their cake and eat it, too.
Except the weathering and most chemical processes occur at or near the surface of the earth so buried fossils are protected. Magma would be local and obvious. Plate tectonics is a slow process that would bend and fold deeply buried rock layers but they would not crumble.

What it comes down to is that you need to believe these things since you interpret the Bible literally. Maybe you should interpret what is in front of you literally.
I doubt it. How would you know how far they were buried? We know there were seafloor eruptions and magma came up. Plate tectonics would move those fossils all around. That is scientific method. The nice older layers and newer layers on top just do not make sense. You guys make up stuff like glaciers cut into rock and form mountain ranges. That doesn't happen.

The science is found by radiocarbon dating of thousands of years. That fits better than the nonsensical millions or billions of years. No one can observe that.

"Scientists prove earth is THOUSANDS not billions of years old.

Eight PhD scientists recently released their findings on the radioisotope evidence for the age of the earth. They were called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). They spent eight years on the project. They studied many radioisotopic dating methods including carbon 14.

You may remember the carbon 14 dating method from your high school biology class. Carbon 14 is useful only in dating samples containing carbon which usually means plant and animal matter (though diamonds also contain carbon).

Carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years. This means an object 5,730 years old should have only half the amount of carbon 14 in ratio to carbon 12 as a new object.

Any object that is older than twenty carbon 14 half lives should not have any detectable carbon 14. In other words, since carbon 14's half life is 5,730 years, twenty half lives would be 114,600 years and there should be no detectable carbon 14 in a sample that old.

The RATE group tested ten samples of coal which it obtained from the US Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. The ten samples were of coal taken from coalfields all across the United States. The samples represented a wide range of standard time frames in the geologic column including the Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic.

The coal samples were considered to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old by traditional old earth standards. However, in direct contradiction to the standard old earth timeframe, all ten samples of coal had significant levels of detectable carbon 14.

The fact that carbon 14 was detected in every sample of coal clearly shows that the standard old earth estimates for the age of coal are wrong by several orders of magnitude.

Old earth evolutionists assume that coal deposits and their accompanying fossils are many millions of years old because evolutionary processes require millions of years. Their presupposition of evolution distorts their ability to objectively date coal. A scientist is supposed to be objective and go to wherever the facts take him or her.

Carbon 14 dating, which is a highly accredited radioisotopic dating method, shows that the coal samples could not be older than 114,600 years. The objective scientific facts point to young earth.

To be fair, I will point out that the age of any object cannot be nailed down with absolute certainty because geologic dating is forensic science and deals with nonrepeatable events that occurred in the distant past.

Forensic science is the type of science used by a police detective to reconstruct the timing of past events that occurred at a crime scene. Experimental science, by contrast, deals with repeatable events such as what occurs with chemicals in a test tube. Forensic science, since it deals with the past, is more subjective and open to interpretation.

The ten coal samples had carbon 14 levels consistent with an age estimate of approximately 50,000 years. That 50,000 year age estimate is quite older than the biblical time frame of approximately 6,000 years. The Bible, through its listing of the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies, gives an approximate 6,000 year age of the earth since the creation.

The discrepancy is resolved when we take into account that the implied 50,000 year age of the coal is based on the assumption that the carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratio in the earth's environment was the same when the coal was formed as it is today.

Scientists at Answers In Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research who study the earth's magnetic field maintain that the earth's magnetic field was several times stronger in ancient times than it is today and therefore carbon 14 was formed in the upper atmosphere at a much slower rate. Therefore there was much less carbon 14 available in the ancient earth than there is now and this accounts for the low amount in the coal. This implies that the coal samples' actual age can reasonably be inferred to be within the biblical timeframe of 6,000 years.

To put it another way, the implied 50,000 year age of the coal blows away the old earth timeframe but even the implied 50,000 year age is likely much higher than the actual age of the coal. We can confidently say that the actual age is much younger than 50,000 years because carbon 14 levels were very low during the time of coal formation in the early earth.

The RATE group also tested twelve samples of diamonds and found detectable levels of carbon 14. This is especially significant because diamonds are not prone to any kind of potential contamination because of their extreme hardness. Old earth evolutionists claim that diamonds are up to 3.5 billion years old. The presence of carbon 14 in diamonds clearly shows the absurdity of that claim.

Other groups of scientists have found detectable levels of carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. I have read that scientists, even old earth evolutionist scientists, cannot find any fossil or coal that does not have carbon 14!

The RATE group was composed of scientists who believe in creation. Their work however, merely confirmed the work of noncreationist scientists who have measured carbon 14 in coal and diamonds since Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was used to measure carbon 14 beginning in the early 1980s.

As you can imagine, the discovery of carbon 14 in coal beginning in the 1980s sent shockwaves through the radiocarbon community. Dozens of papers were published in peer reviewed journals dealing with this embarrassing development. Painstaking efforts were made to eliminate any sample contamination or equipment malfunction yet carbon 14 kept showing up in coal and fossils!

One of the RATE scientists, John Baumgardner PhD, has cited many noncreationist scientific writings on carbon 14 in coal and diamonds. One of these is a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon discussing the detection of carbon 14 in diamonds. Baumgardner also effectively rebutted a web posting by Kirk Bertsche that criticized the work of the RATE group.

Creationists claim that coal was formed rapidly during Noah's flood when "all the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen. 7:11 NASB.) This Bible passage refers to massive volcanism and tectonic shifts that occurred during the flood.

Huge land masses containing dense vegetation were subducted (buried) during the movements of the earth's plates. This resulted in vast stores of vegetation being buried deep beneath the earth's surface where temperature and pressure caused it to change into coal and oil. Some oil deposits are more than five miles below the earth's surface.

Coal formation had to happen rapidly because slow accumulation of plant matter allows the plant matter to rot before it can be turned into coal. Plant matter in today's Amazon basin rots far more rapidly than plant matter in more temperate climates.

Carbon 14 in coal and diamonds gives persuasive evidence favoring a young age of planet earth. Carbon 14, like the recent finds of blood remnants in dinosaur bones and other natural clocks showing a young age of earth are persuading an ever growing number of scientists.

It used to be that creationists were like a hidden guerrilla band among PhD scientists. Now with the rapidly growing Intelligent Design Movement a regular army of evolution denying scientists has emerged.

Creation of this planet occurred within the biblical timeframe. Young age of earth clearly disproves Darwinian evolution."

 
Last edited:

RWS

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
196
Points
130
... Not so simple an issue. Even if your eyes work perfectly you still need your brain to understand what your eyes see. I think the eye-brain connection really begins to develop only after birth.
I guess this is a real mistake. So let me correct it: Who knows something about evolution is able to know that the eye is an organ, which has in case of human beings the origin in brain tissue. So our eyes are directly part of the brain. Not so in case of an octopus for example, although the eye of an octopus looks very similar. Whatever: in case of human beings the visual center of the brain is behind the backside of the skull. The complete eye is a very big part of the biological landscape between the cornea and the visual center.

And the "idea" an unborn human being is hot a human being is by the way totally absurde. Most abortions hurt without any doubt the human right to live.
WTF? I'll leave it alone... Lol.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
6,392
Reaction score
229
Points
140
... Scientists prove earth is THOUSANDS not billions of years old. ...
And you believe this nonsense and propagate this nonsense, althought you are able to know it better? Do you know that everyone, who denies any truth, denies the truth, denies god?

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
Pope Benedict XVI

 
Last edited:

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
281
Points
95
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:



A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
You cannot get something from nothing
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.

Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.

Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary.
You could have fooled me.

And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.

God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
Your standard of proof for existence - what you refer to as science has no explanation other than you know some things exist that you sense. You have every right to think that constitutes evidence. That, however does not necessarily make you right.

The Bible gives a logical explanation for the creation of man and our world. But, my view of evidence is in the fact that the Bible has a God that foretold the future in great detail... something your science cannot do. Neither can your science stop what the Bible foretold for the future. We have different standards. What you need to be thinking about is why it is so imperative for you to force me to accept your proposition. Oddly, the Bible predicts that people like you would do that. A wise man once remarked:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

There is a reason you're investing so much time trying to dodge, deflect and circumvent an uncomfortable truth while inferring something is wrong with those who see the same evidence you do and come to an opposite conclusion based on the facts. Matter exists. Of that there is no dispute. But, where did it come from? You don't know because you cannot imagine nothingness and neither can I.
There’s nothing logical about supernaturalism or the supernatural creation of man. Nothing logical about talking serpents. Nothing logical about the gods condemning all of humanity because a supernaturally created human failed a test the gods knew they would fail. The gods lied to A&E (not the cable network). How logical is it that dead men rise or seas part? It never happens in the natural, rational world.

As to the gods foretelling the future, I’m not sure where you get that. The all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were written by men, most of whom are unknown. There’s no indication that any of the gods wrote, dictated or had final editing rights to anything in the Bible. Claiming the Bible had Gods that foretold the future in great detail is simply not true.
Okay, first - With respect to "talking serpents," that was figurative language. Eve did not bite an apple and talk to a snake. If you understood the story, it would make sense to you:


Seas have parted and dead people have come back to life. You should talk to someone who has been declared dead and came back.

The Bible has told us in great detail of events to come and things that happened. Just because you have not been taught various interpretations and tested them does not prove your point.
.
The Bible has told us in great detail of events to come and things that happened. Just because you have not been taught various interpretations and tested them does not prove your point.
the spoken religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty is nearly six words long - the triumph of good vs evil - your book only covers the latter without mention of the former in final conclusion. there is no possible means for survival through interpretation from any of the written documents as offered, good luck.
We will have to agree to disagree. God Bless
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:



A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
You cannot get something from nothing
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.

Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.

Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary.
You could have fooled me.

And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.

God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
Your standard of proof for existence - what you refer to as science has no explanation other than you know some things exist that you sense. You have every right to think that constitutes evidence. That, however does not necessarily make you right.

The Bible gives a logical explanation for the creation of man and our world. But, my view of evidence is in the fact that the Bible has a God that foretold the future in great detail... something your science cannot do. Neither can your science stop what the Bible foretold for the future. We have different standards. What you need to be thinking about is why it is so imperative for you to force me to accept your proposition. Oddly, the Bible predicts that people like you would do that. A wise man once remarked:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

There is a reason you're investing so much time trying to dodge, deflect and circumvent an uncomfortable truth while inferring something is wrong with those who see the same evidence you do and come to an opposite conclusion based on the facts. Matter exists. Of that there is no dispute. But, where did it come from? You don't know because you cannot imagine nothingness and neither can I.
There’s nothing logical about supernaturalism or the supernatural creation of man. Nothing logical about talking serpents. Nothing logical about the gods condemning all of humanity because a supernaturally created human failed a test the gods knew they would fail. The gods lied to A&E (not the cable network). How logical is it that dead men rise or seas part? It never happens in the natural, rational world.

As to the gods foretelling the future, I’m not sure where you get that. The all-knowing, all-seeing bibles were written by men, most of whom are unknown. There’s no indication that any of the gods wrote, dictated or had final editing rights to anything in the Bible. Claiming the Bible had Gods that foretold the future in great detail is simply not true.
Okay, first - With respect to "talking serpents," that was figurative language. Eve did not bite an apple and talk to a snake. If you understood the story, it would make sense to you:


Seas have parted and dead people have come back to life. You should talk to someone who has been declared dead and came back.

The Bible has told us in great detail of events to come and things that happened. Just because you have not been taught various interpretations and tested them does not prove your point.
Re-writing the Bibles is poor cricket, Laddie. If the gods wanted serpents and apples, why change the fable to something not in the Bibles? I think we’ve all read the argument “god says in the Bible, .....”. Have the gods assigned you with editing rights?

I've noticed many times that religionists are convinced that they, and they alone, hold the "true" interpretation of the bibles. They are inerrant in their version of truth and depending on the religionist, that truth ranges from literal interpretation of biblical tales and fables to all of it being an allegorical account.

Since the gods are not descending from the heavens with their black and white striped shirts and whistles to referee the match, I will personally assume the role of final arbiter of biblical "twoof".

Really? Seas have parted on queue? Identify where please.

As to dead men rising, there are accounts of misdiagnosing and simple error. Please identify a single case of a dead person rising days after their death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RWS

Newtonian

Active Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
38
Points
31
The origin/creation of our universe is an example of a verifiable supernatural event - depending on your definition of supernatural.

Our universe is precisely fine tuned in many ways to allow for stars and life as we know it to exist. Our planet is fine tuned so that life on the surface of the earth could exist.

For example, the precise fine tuning of the expansion rate of our universe (Isaiah 40:22,26) allowed stars to exist, which allowed supernovas to exist which allowed elements other than Lithium and Hydrogen to exist .....

The Big Bang theory has some elements of truth to it (pun intended) but it does not explain many things including the crucial one: the actual origin of our universe.

Many scientists reject the law of conservation of matter and energy and the principle of cause and effect - some even claim our universe came from nothing!

I might add that Genesis 1:1 is accurate in stating both heaven(s) and earth have a beginning.

Btw - Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists - we reject some of their religious doctrines but we accept the Biblical account of creation.
Nothing in the formation of the universe comes anywhere close to proving supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational
I was responding to someone else who used the term "supernatural." I asked what definition of supernatural was meant - if the answer was posted, I missed it. I don't use the term myself, since I think other energy-based (spirit) life forms are natural scientifically. Extraterrestrial life forms would be more accurate - and God would be the supreme First Cause in the chain of cause and effects going back to the creation of primordial time assuming primordial time had a beginning - which I don't think any human knows at this time.

I will define primordial time: the time during which cause and effect proceeded during the cause(s) of the origin of our universe. It is not our universe specific space-time which began at the origin of our
universe.

[Note: The name of God is Jehovah (Psalms 83:18 KJV) which in Hebrew is H3068/yehovah/YHWH=JHVH. This name is a verb - containing the Hebrew verb hawah (HWH) in the causative sense and a primary definition of this name is: He causes to be. Thus the Divine Name actually confirms the scientific principle of cause and effect but narrows down the choice of infinite past causes and effects during infinite past time or a First Cause. I.e. Jehovah is the First Cause.]
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
65,933
Reaction score
2,744
Points
1,855
The origin/creation of our universe is an example of a verifiable supernatural event - depending on your definition of supernatural.

Our universe is precisely fine tuned in many ways to allow for stars and life as we know it to exist. Our planet is fine tuned so that life on the surface of the earth could exist.

For example, the precise fine tuning of the expansion rate of our universe (Isaiah 40:22,26) allowed stars to exist, which allowed supernovas to exist which allowed elements other than Lithium and Hydrogen to exist .....

The Big Bang theory has some elements of truth to it (pun intended) but it does not explain many things including the crucial one: the actual origin of our universe.

Many scientists reject the law of conservation of matter and energy and the principle of cause and effect - some even claim our universe came from nothing!

I might add that Genesis 1:1 is accurate in stating both heaven(s) and earth have a beginning.

Btw - Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists - we reject some of their religious doctrines but we accept the Biblical account of creation.
Nothing in the formation of the universe comes anywhere close to proving supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational
Supernaturalism: that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time has always existed and is the source or matrix for the material world. Such that the physical world is composed of mind stuff such that beings that know and create would eventually arise.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
34,319
Reaction score
3,069
Points
1,115
The origin/creation of our universe is an example of a verifiable supernatural event - depending on your definition of supernatural.

Our universe is precisely fine tuned in many ways to allow for stars and life as we know it to exist. Our planet is fine tuned so that life on the surface of the earth could exist.

For example, the precise fine tuning of the expansion rate of our universe (Isaiah 40:22,26) allowed stars to exist, which allowed supernovas to exist which allowed elements other than Lithium and Hydrogen to exist .....

The Big Bang theory has some elements of truth to it (pun intended) but it does not explain many things including the crucial one: the actual origin of our universe.

Many scientists reject the law of conservation of matter and energy and the principle of cause and effect - some even claim our universe came from nothing!

I might add that Genesis 1:1 is accurate in stating both heaven(s) and earth have a beginning.

Btw - Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists - we reject some of their religious doctrines but we accept the Biblical account of creation.
Nothing in the formation of the universe comes anywhere close to proving supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is not a part of the rational world. You have yet to even define supernaturalism and how that would apply to the rational world.

Therefore, it is rational to reject your appeals to a realm you cannot define, cannot describe and cannot offer evidence for. Concluding that your asserted supernatural realms, agents, entities, etc., are non existent is perfectly rational
I was responding to someone else who used the term "supernatural." I asked what definition of supernatural was meant - if the answer was posted, I missed it. I don't use the term myself, since I think other energy-based (spirit) life forms are natural scientifically. Extraterrestrial life forms would be more accurate - and God would be the supreme First Cause in the chain of cause and effects going back to the creation of primordial time assuming primordial time had a beginning - which I don't think any human knows at this time.

I will define primordial time: the time during which cause and effect proceeded during the cause(s) of the origin of our universe. It is not our universe specific space-time which began at the origin of our
universe.

[Note: The name of God is Jehovah (Psalms 83:18 KJV) which in Hebrew is H3068/yehovah/YHWH=JHVH. This name is a verb - containing the Hebrew verb hawah (HWH) in the causative sense and a primary definition of this name is: He causes to be. Thus the Divine Name actually confirms the scientific principle of cause and effect but narrows down the choice of infinite past causes and effects during infinite past time or a First Cause. I.e. Jehovah is the First Cause.]
There are lots of books which make claims to gods other than the gods you reference.

Can you provide some evidence for Jehovah as opposed to, oh, I don’t know, Osiris? Why not present that evidence? It’s not the role of a disbeliever to disprove what is not supported. How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer?

Further, how do we then examine the hierarchy of supernatural designers who designed the subordinate designer? I think you can see I’m being facetious here but why presume one intelligent designer when none are needed and a logical presumption to an intelligent designer is a hierarchical structure of designers.

Why not believe in all the gods and then just sort them into a hierarchy, thus making an ordered list of how the gods can meet your expectations?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top