Creationists' theory in detail

[ding]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

There is no need to rewrite it. There is only a need to not read it like a jackanape. Which is exactly how you read it.

 

[Newtonian]

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 who used the term supernatural and asked what definition was meant?

A definition of the spirit (Hebrew ruach = invisible energy or active force) realm would involve energy based life forms - Extraterrestrial is more accurate - I don't use the term supernatural normally. Likely God and angels live in other universes normally (my personal opinion).

1 Kings 8:27 shows God cannot be contained in either the heavens or the heaven of the heavens (which may be a universe containing perhaps 100 billion universes). The Bible does not say why God cannot be contained in our universe - whether simply being larger in 3-d size or existing in more dimensions (compare String theory models) than our universe contains. But 1 Kings 8:30 does state God does dwell in another heaven(s) which I think means a pre-existing universe.

Please note that many scientists believe it likely that there are superior extraterrestrial life forms even in our universe! But in their search (SETI) they focus on matter based life forms - I am not aware of any that are researching energy based life forms - one problem is that God, like dark/invisible energy, is invisible.

One line of evidence (other than Bible prophecy about pestilences in these last days) is researching how cause and effect proceeded when our universe was created. This is detailed and extensive research which I cannot fit into one post. But I can mention 3 areas of this line of evidence:

1. Job 38:33 - how were the laws governing our universe produced. Simply, laws require a law-giver.

2. Fine tuning of the universe so that stars and life as we know it exists. For example, most of the elements required for life on earth's surface/crust required supernovas.

3. Fine tuning of planet earth so that life on earth's surface is enjoyable to man. For example - how solar radiation is filtered out (including the solar wind being deflected) while the light which reaches earth is good (Genesis 1:4) for plants which we need to survive and enjoy eating and breathing.

 

[ding]

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?

Just because there are multiple perceptions of God doesn’t mean there is no God.

That’s the argument of a twelve year old.

 

[Hollie]

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 who used the term supernatural and asked what definition was meant?

A definition of the spirit (Hebrew ruach = invisible energy or active force) realm would involve energy based life forms - Extraterrestrial is more accurate - I don't use the term supernatural normally. Likely God and angels live in other universes normally (my personal opinion).

1 Kings 8:27 shows God cannot be contained in either the heavens or the heaven of the heavens (which may be a universe containing perhaps 100 billion universes). The Bible does not say why God cannot be contained in our universe - whether simply being larger in 3-d size or existing in more dimensions (compare String theory models) than our universe contains. But 1 Kings 8:30 does state God does dwell in another heaven(s) which I think means a pre-existing universe.

Please note that many scientists believe it likely that there are superior extraterrestrial life forms even in our universe! But in their search (SETI) they focus on matter based life forms - I am not aware of any that are researching energy based life forms - one problem is that God, like dark/invisible energy, is invisible.

One line of evidence (other than Bible prophecy about pestilences in these last days) is researching how cause and effect proceeded when our universe was created. This is detailed and extensive research which I cannot fit into one post. But I can mention 3 areas of this line of evidence:

1. Job 38:33 - how were the laws governing our universe produced. Simply, laws require a law-giver.

2. Fine tuning of the universe so that stars and life as we know it exists. For example, most of the elements required for life on earth's surface/crust required supernovas.

3. Fine tuning of planet earth so that life on earth's surface is enjoyable to man. For example - how solar radiation is filtered out (including the solar wind being deflected) while the light which reaches earth is good (Genesis 1:4) for plants which we need to survive and enjoy eating and breathing.

The “fine tuning” argument is standard fare from the various creation ministries but makes no sense in terms of the violence and chaos in the universe and our solar system.

In Depth | P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 – NASA Solar System Exploration

NASA’s real-time science encyclopedia of deep space exploration. Our scientists and hardworking robots are exploring the wild frontiers of our solar system.

solarsystem.nasa.gov

Firstly, where is this "order" you see in the universe? It doesn't exist. Have you realized that photos of planetary objects in this solar system depict objects that are pock-marked with craters? Why do you think that Is?

Have you ever heard of Shoemaker-Levy? I linked it above. How about a minor event on this planet 65 million years ago?

The fact is, the universe is a place hostile to life and unforgiving of "patterns". There is planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc. Galaxies collide, stars exhaust their fuel and explode in emission of energy that is "cosmic" in scale which obliterates other space objects. Black holes consume entire portions of space. Space objects collide and are reduced to dust. There are also huge areas of the cosmos which are empty and other areas relatively dense with planets, stars, etc.

This "fine tuning” that is pressed by creation ministries is a fraud. Don’t be an accomplice to fraud. We live in human time frames, not geologic time frames, thus we are spared experiencing most of the chaos of the universe.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[alang1216]

You guys make up stuff like glaciers cut into rock and form mountain ranges. That doesn't happen.

It happened in the past and is happening today. Many mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are still rising. Glaciers are still cutting their valleys. You can see these things with your own eyes.

As for the RATE report, non-affiliated experts who have scrutinised the claims have unanimously rejected them as flawed.

 

[Newtonian]

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?

Yes, there are other books that present gods - but only one that is scientifically accurate: the Bible.

The name Jehovah is a verb in the imperfect Hebrew verb state = action in progress not yet complete. The verb is hawah (HWH) = to be/become in the causative sense = He causes to be - which is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect and identifies Jehovah as the First Cause.

Creation is in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy. Since God is a spirit (Hebrew ruach; Greek pneuma = invisible active energy/force) this posits that energy pre-existed matter. Interestingly, energy preceded matter in our universe. Also this law confirms energy always existed which is in harmony with the eternal existence of God.

Also, while there are those who believe in chemical evolution, the actual observations confirm biogenesis: life from life. That points to life always existing - simply: Jehovah is alive and is the Source of life.

And the origin of intelligence involves the origin of life, since informational molecules are required for life and the principle of entropy (part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) causes information to degrade causing death. Life overcomes entropy because of informational molecules. Thus the difference between life and death confirms intelligence always existed - since entropy does not allow chemical processes to create informational molecules but rather produce only statistical molecules.

Bottom line: there are extensive lines of scientific evidence that confirm an intelligent living energy-based Being is the First Cause in harmony with the verb in the name Jehovah.

And, thankfully, God is love! (1 John 4:8).

 

[Hollie]

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 who used the term supernatural and asked what definition was meant?

A definition of the spirit (Hebrew ruach = invisible energy or active force) realm would involve energy based life forms - Extraterrestrial is more accurate - I don't use the term supernatural normally. Likely God and angels live in other universes normally (my personal opinion).

1 Kings 8:27 shows God cannot be contained in either the heavens or the heaven of the heavens (which may be a universe containing perhaps 100 billion universes). The Bible does not say why God cannot be contained in our universe - whether simply being larger in 3-d size or existing in more dimensions (compare String theory models) than our universe contains. But 1 Kings 8:30 does state God does dwell in another heaven(s) which I think means a pre-existing universe.

Please note that many scientists believe it likely that there are superior extraterrestrial life forms even in our universe! But in their search (SETI) they focus on matter based life forms - I am not aware of any that are researching energy based life forms - one problem is that God, like dark/invisible energy, is invisible.

One line of evidence (other than Bible prophecy about pestilences in these last days) is researching how cause and effect proceeded when our universe was created. This is detailed and extensive research which I cannot fit into one post. But I can mention 3 areas of this line of evidence:

1. Job 38:33 - how were the laws governing our universe produced. Simply, laws require a law-giver.

2. Fine tuning of the universe so that stars and life as we know it exists. For example, most of the elements required for life on earth's surface/crust required supernovas.

3. Fine tuning of planet earth so that life on earth's surface is enjoyable to man. For example - how solar radiation is filtered out (including the solar wind being deflected) while the light which reaches earth is good (Genesis 1:4) for plants which we need to survive and enjoy eating and breathing.

God lives much closer than another universe. He was over for dinner the other night. He had two servings of my best grilled chicken, roasted peppers, jalapeños and melted cheese.

I was going to serve wine and crackers before the meal but though that might be inappropriate.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Yes, there are other books that present gods - but only one that is scientifically accurate: the Bible.

The name Jehovah is a verb in the imperfect Hebrew verb state = action in progress not yet complete. The verb is hawah (HWH) = to be/become in the causative sense = He causes to be - which is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect and identifies Jehovah as the First Cause.

Creation is in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy. Since God is a spirit (Hebrew ruach; Greek pneuma = invisible active energy/force) this posits that energy pre-existed matter. Interestingly, energy preceded matter in our universe. Also this law confirms energy always existed which is in harmony with the eternal existence of God.

Also, while there are those who believe in chemical evolution, the actual observations confirm biogenesis: life from life. That points to life always existing - simply: Jehovah is alive and is the Source of life.

And the origin of intelligence involves the origin of life, since informational molecules are required for life and the principle of entropy (part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) causes information to degrade causing death. Life overcomes entropy because of informational molecules. Thus the difference between life and death confirms intelligence always existed - since entropy does not allow chemical processes to create informational molecules but rather produce only statistical molecules.

Bottom line: there are extensive lines of scientific evidence that confirm an intelligent living energy-based Being is the First Cause in harmony with the verb in the name Jehovah.

And, thankfully, God is love! (1 John 4:8).

Ah, the Bible is a science text.

That statement produces a long list of fallacies. Humanity has a long, lurid history (800 years worth), when the church in Europe held the very notions you appear to hold.

Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. Holy texts laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

I do find it curious that statements such as, “there are extensive lines of scientific evidence that confirm an intelligent living energy-based Being is the First Cause in harmony with the verb in the name Jehovah.”, are never followed by any scientific evidence. I wonder why that is.

 

[Hollie]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hurling bible verses at me accomplishes what? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is fallacious. Otherwise, if you had actually read the genesis fable you might have noticed any number of contradictions within the fable. I’m always surprised that those most willing to cut and paste disconnected verses have never taken the time to actually the stuff.

Item 4) in your list is a misstatement of what I wrote. If you have any verifiable information of dead people rising, please present that information.

 

[Newtonian]

You all - I have not read the thread but I will post evidence of fine tuning; please let me know what has already been posted about 'fine tuning' of the properties and laws in our universe to allow for matter-based life forms.

First I will post a link to our literature on these and other lines of scientific research pointing to our having a Creator who cares for us (from our 1998 book with a similar title) since I cannot fit all of these in this post - the chapter on how our universe got here:

How Did Our Universe Get Here?—The Controversy — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

I will start with the fine tuned rate of expansion of our universe. The above link quotes astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell:

"“If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”"

Since then dark energy has been discovered which makes this fine tuning even more complex than Lovell realized - but the precision of fine tuning of the expansion rate is still here/there. Our 2009 Awake article updates this, including how dark matter and dark energy are involved:

A Universe Full of Surprises — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

 

[Hollie]

You all - I have not read the thread but I will post evidence of fine tuning; please let me know what has already been posted about 'fine tuning' of the properties and laws in our universe to allow for matter-based life forms.

First I will post a link to our literature on these and other lines of scientific research pointing to our having a Creator who cares for us (from our 1998 book with a similar title) since I cannot fit all of these in this post - the chapter on how our universe got here:

How Did Our Universe Get Here?—The Controversy — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

I will start with the fine tuned rate of expansion of our universe. The above link quotes astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell:

"“If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”"

Since then dark energy has been discovered which makes this fine tuning even more complex than Lovell realized - but the precision of fine tuning of the expansion rate is still here/there. Our 2009 Awake article updates this, including how dark matter and dark energy are involved:

A Universe Full of Surprises — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Yeah, it’s the old “if things were different, things would be different”, argument.

It’s standard fare from the Watchtower Bible Tract.

If today was Friday, it wouldn’t be Thursday. See. I just offered proof of the gods.

Can you link us to peer reviewed papers published by the JW’s? I wasn’t aware they were a research organization.

Thanks.

 

[Newtonian]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hurling bible verses at me accomplishes what? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is fallacious. Otherwise, if you had actually read the genesis fable you might have noticed any number of contradictions within the fable. I’m always surprised that those most willing to cut and paste disconnected verses have never taken the time to actually the stuff.

Item 4) in your list is a misstatement of what I wrote. If you have any verifiable information of dead people rising, please present that information.

I was not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I simply noted some verses which subsequent scientific research has proved true. That would be science proving the Bible.

For centuries Aristotle's model of a fixed eternal universe was accepted. The Bible teaches both that heaven and earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) and is not rigid (Isaiah 40:22).

See this article comparing Aristotle's model of a rigid universe with what the Bible teaches:

Who Made the Laws That Govern Our Universe? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Oh, and I have studied the Biblical account of creation and not only is it scientifically tenable but also has no contradictions. Note, however, that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not accept the creationist doctrine of 24 hour creative days. There are multiple definitions of "day" in Biblical usage and in current English usage - an example of the latter: in Abraham Lincoln's day.

Apparent contradictions in both scientific observations and Biblical research are due to inaccurate interpretations. For example - Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the heavens which would include the stars. However, Genesis 1:16 refers to God making stars to appear in the sky when earth's accretion envelopment became somewhat transparent - perhaps between belts more massive than Saturn's rings.

Those who think Gen. 1:16 contradicts Gen. 1:1 fail to note that Gen. 1:1 uses the Hebrew word bara/create whereas Gen. 1:16 uses a form of Hebrew asah in the Hebrew imperfect verb state which is in harmony with a gradual increase in transparency since this verb state involves action in progress which was not then complete. Note this NW footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state.

A good summary of the Genesis 1 creation account is here:

The Untold Story of Creation — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

 

[BreezeWood]

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."

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

.

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.

they were disbarred in the 1800's from authoritative responsibilities - their reemergence has been a never ending headline ever since. by bond.

christianity, the desert religions have always been religions of denial ... persecution and victimization of the truth as a promotion for their own self interest, satisfying their needs over that of humanity - forcibly with vindictivety to this day.

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

and that's why t-rex is featured on early cave art and not cows and deer.

primordial earth - an accelerated ToE isn't just as likely as the 6000 year young earth scenario ...

 

[Newtonian]

You all - I have not read the thread but I will post evidence of fine tuning; please let me know what has already been posted about 'fine tuning' of the properties and laws in our universe to allow for matter-based life forms.

First I will post a link to our literature on these and other lines of scientific research pointing to our having a Creator who cares for us (from our 1998 book with a similar title) since I cannot fit all of these in this post - the chapter on how our universe got here:

How Did Our Universe Get Here?—The Controversy — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

I will start with the fine tuned rate of expansion of our universe. The above link quotes astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell:

"“If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”"

Since then dark energy has been discovered which makes this fine tuning even more complex than Lovell realized - but the precision of fine tuning of the expansion rate is still here/there. Our 2009 Awake article updates this, including how dark matter and dark energy are involved:

A Universe Full of Surprises — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Yeah, it’s the old “if things were different, things would be different”, argument.

It’s standard fare from the Watchtower Bible Tract.

If today was Friday, it wouldn’t be Thursday. See. I just offered proof of the gods.

Can you link us to peer reviewed papers published by the JW’s? I wasn’t aware they were a research organization.

Thanks.

You are welcome- see the Bibliographies at the end of this post.

Peer reviewed? Who do you think are our peers? We are independent researchers - and most of us are not into science as much as I personally am - though some of us are scientists in various fields of study. Peer review, as I think you mean it, is no guarantee of scientific accuracy. In fact, peer reviewed science models are often contradictory. They also tend to favor popular models - in fact peer review approval implies popular.

A good example is how to alleviate the current pandemic - various models are out there and various strategies are involved.

However, our literature does quote 'peer reviewed' scientific sources. See the Bibliography in our two brochures relevant to this thread theme:

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

 

[BreezeWood]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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

.

We will have to agree to disagree. God Bless

.
how about, yes we disagree -

some are willing to do something about it, there is no place for evil anywhere on planet Earth - there is no religion of sinners, just sinners.

 

[Hollie]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hurling bible verses at me accomplishes what? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is fallacious. Otherwise, if you had actually read the genesis fable you might have noticed any number of contradictions within the fable. I’m always surprised that those most willing to cut and paste disconnected verses have never taken the time to actually the stuff.

Item 4) in your list is a misstatement of what I wrote. If you have any verifiable information of dead people rising, please present that information.

I was not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I simply noted some verses which subsequent scientific research has proved true. That would be science proving the Bible.

For centuries Aristotle's model of a fixed eternal universe was accepted. The Bible teaches both that heaven and earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) and is not rigid (Isaiah 40:22).

See this article comparing Aristotle's model of a rigid universe with what the Bible teaches:

Who Made the Laws That Govern Our Universe? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Oh, and I have studied the Biblical account of creation and not only is it scientifically tenable but also has no contradictions. Note, however, that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not accept the creationist doctrine of 24 hour creative days. There are multiple definitions of "day" in Biblical usage and in current English usage - an example of the latter: in Abraham Lincoln's day.

Apparent contradictions in both scientific observations and Biblical research are due to inaccurate interpretations. For example - Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the heavens which would include the stars. However, Genesis 1:16 refers to God making stars to appear in the sky when earth's accretion envelopment became somewhat transparent - perhaps between belts more massive than Saturn's rings.

Those who think Gen. 1:16 contradicts Gen. 1:1 fail to note that Gen. 1:1 uses the Hebrew word bara/create whereas Gen. 1:16 uses a form of Hebrew asah in the Hebrew imperfect verb state which is in harmony with a gradual increase in transparency since this verb state involves action in progress which was not then complete. Note this NW footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state.

A good summary of the Genesis 1 creation account is here:

The Untold Story of Creation — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

I saw nothing in the Bible verses you posted that came anywhere close to science proving the bibles.

Does science confirm a 6,000 year old planet, or a flat planet?

 

[Newtonian]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hurling bible verses at me accomplishes what? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is fallacious. Otherwise, if you had actually read the genesis fable you might have noticed any number of contradictions within the fable. I’m always surprised that those most willing to cut and paste disconnected verses have never taken the time to actually the stuff.

Item 4) in your list is a misstatement of what I wrote. If you have any verifiable information of dead people rising, please present that information.

I was not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I simply noted some verses which subsequent scientific research has proved true. That would be science proving the Bible.

For centuries Aristotle's model of a fixed eternal universe was accepted. The Bible teaches both that heaven and earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) and is not rigid (Isaiah 40:22).

See this article comparing Aristotle's model of a rigid universe with what the Bible teaches:

Who Made the Laws That Govern Our Universe? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Oh, and I have studied the Biblical account of creation and not only is it scientifically tenable but also has no contradictions. Note, however, that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not accept the creationist doctrine of 24 hour creative days. There are multiple definitions of "day" in Biblical usage and in current English usage - an example of the latter: in Abraham Lincoln's day.

Apparent contradictions in both scientific observations and Biblical research are due to inaccurate interpretations. For example - Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the heavens which would include the stars. However, Genesis 1:16 refers to God making stars to appear in the sky when earth's accretion envelopment became somewhat transparent - perhaps between belts more massive than Saturn's rings.

Those who think Gen. 1:16 contradicts Gen. 1:1 fail to note that Gen. 1:1 uses the Hebrew word bara/create whereas Gen. 1:16 uses a form of Hebrew asah in the Hebrew imperfect verb state which is in harmony with a gradual increase in transparency since this verb state involves action in progress which was not then complete. Note this NW footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state.

A good summary of the Genesis 1 creation account is here:

The Untold Story of Creation — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

I saw nothing in the Bible verses you posted that came anywhere close to science proving the bibles.

Does science confirm a 6,000 year old planet, or a flat planet?

Jehovah's Witnesses are not creationists- we believe in what the Bible actually teaches.

The fact that the terminator was a circle on the surface of earth's primordial waters proves earth is a sphere - see Job 26:10; Proverbs 8:27. The same Hebrew word is used in Isaiah 40:22 which proves earth is round, not flat.

The dating of earth's shield rocks by K-40 dating shows these rocks are near the half-life of K-40. Atmospheric argon contamination calls into question dates of millions of years but not dates of a few billion years.

You might want to know what we actually believe - for example this on the age of the universe and earth, for example:

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Scientists estimate that the earth is about 4 billion years old and that the universe was born some 13 to 14 billion years ago. The Bible sets no date for the creation of the universe. In no place does it affirm that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The very first verse in the Bible reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) That general statement allows scientists to determine the age of the physical world according to sound scientific principles."

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hurling bible verses at me accomplishes what? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is fallacious. Otherwise, if you had actually read the genesis fable you might have noticed any number of contradictions within the fable. I’m always surprised that those most willing to cut and paste disconnected verses have never taken the time to actually the stuff.

Item 4) in your list is a misstatement of what I wrote. If you have any verifiable information of dead people rising, please present that information.

I have read the Bible several times and you are accusing people of what YOU are guilty of. Furthermore, you did not access nor read provided links. So, your criticisms lack any credibility. The other information was presented. Like everything else you want to dismiss the truth. The facts remain: Just because you disbelieve a fact does not make the fact any less true. If this is going to be a one sided conversation with you spewing ignorance and bigotry, you might find yourself having a conversation with just yourself.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''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.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

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):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

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:

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange By Charles Lee Mange THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 By Charles Lee Mange FOREWORD This book is written in the faith that a remnant of the Covenant Family

docplayer.net

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.

1) The Bible was not written in English. It has been interpreted and the Bible says this:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25: 2

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” II Timothy 2: 15

There are literal and figurative truths in the Bible. Parable and symbolic language cannot be understood by those who reject the Bible

2) Since you were not willing to read the provided links in this thread, you are posting out of ignorance. For example, let us identify that "serpent" you had a problem with understanding. Can we use the Bible to interpret the Bible?

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:9

"1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain.

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." Revelation 20: 1 and 2

It's pretty clear as to who the serpent actually was. Had you read the book I left a link to, there were many complete chapters throughout the Old and New Testaments that prove a common theme that identifies who the "serpent" of Genesis was / is.

3) Men, inspired of God wrote about their experiences. Here are some modern examples of phenomenon that can explain that what the Bible records:

| EarthSky

On November 14, 1963, volcanic island Surtsey rose from the sea. Scientists have since studied the natural colonization of plants and animals on it.

earthsky.org

4) When people do die, you attribute it to a "misdiagnosis." That is intellectual dishonesty unless you've ever experienced the actual act. I have experienced it and it was no misdiagnosis. It took me several years to come to grips with and accept as when it happened, God was the furthest thing from my mind and I had no preconceived conceptions and had never known anyone that had gone through it. And that is as far as I will go with anyone who has not been through it. For you to ridicule it and poke fun at it would be like a man ridiculing a rape victim. Until you've been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hurling bible verses at me accomplishes what? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is fallacious. Otherwise, if you had actually read the genesis fable you might have noticed any number of contradictions within the fable. I’m always surprised that those most willing to cut and paste disconnected verses have never taken the time to actually the stuff.

Item 4) in your list is a misstatement of what I wrote. If you have any verifiable information of dead people rising, please present that information.

I was not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I simply noted some verses which subsequent scientific research has proved true. That would be science proving the Bible.

For centuries Aristotle's model of a fixed eternal universe was accepted. The Bible teaches both that heaven and earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) and is not rigid (Isaiah 40:22).

See this article comparing Aristotle's model of a rigid universe with what the Bible teaches:

Who Made the Laws That Govern Our Universe? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Oh, and I have studied the Biblical account of creation and not only is it scientifically tenable but also has no contradictions. Note, however, that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not accept the creationist doctrine of 24 hour creative days. There are multiple definitions of "day" in Biblical usage and in current English usage - an example of the latter: in Abraham Lincoln's day.

Apparent contradictions in both scientific observations and Biblical research are due to inaccurate interpretations. For example - Genesis 1:1 refers to the creation of the heavens which would include the stars. However, Genesis 1:16 refers to God making stars to appear in the sky when earth's accretion envelopment became somewhat transparent - perhaps between belts more massive than Saturn's rings.

Those who think Gen. 1:16 contradicts Gen. 1:1 fail to note that Gen. 1:1 uses the Hebrew word bara/create whereas Gen. 1:16 uses a form of Hebrew asah in the Hebrew imperfect verb state which is in harmony with a gradual increase in transparency since this verb state involves action in progress which was not then complete. Note this NW footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state.

A good summary of the Genesis 1 creation account is here:

The Untold Story of Creation — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

I learned a little while ago that you cannot argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. You're being trolled and no matter how many facts we bring to the table, the ignorant will reject them. But, FWIW, good luck. You might plant a few seeds.