If God doesn't exist...

[there4eyeM]

That Adam and Eve were the unique human beings is illustration enough that such stories are at most metaphor. It is more than ridiculous to insist that everyone accept the same literal interpretation of something so far in the past as to be unimaginable.
In any event, do not believers say theirs is a living God? What more would be needed than looking today and seeing the reality? If one looks and does not see, that has to suffice. Arguments from others are inane.

 

[forkup]

...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl

ppl? people?

on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.

While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?

I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.

That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.

2,As to your nt blib.

What?

I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.

¿God is allknowing?

Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?

Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?

Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?

I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.

3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.

I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.

4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull

The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.

but because the body count has become unsustainable.

?

5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.

Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative. And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue. Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion. If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't see any need to correct scripture.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

did Jesus say those words ?

And even if a meteor strike is eventually confirmed as the cause that in itself would not in any way invalidate the hidden instruction in the flood story or disprove that there was a man who was warned by God about the coming doom.

there is no doubt, the parable of Noah is the religion of the bible set by the Almighty with or without whatever is a Messiah. The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

.

 

[MaryL]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

OK. And what kick started GOD, smartypants? There isn't an answer to ANY of this, and what difference does it make?

 

[Boss]

OK. And what kick started GOD, smartypants?

What do you mean by "kickstart" here? The universe is a physical place. That physiology had to begin because it exists physically. God is not physical, therefore, no physiology is needed because God doesn't exist in a physical state.

If you mean kickstarted in a spiritual sense, we don't know if things need to be kickstarted spiritually. However, the biggest problem with your line of reasoning is that it is circular. We don't need to prove where the ocean comes from to prove the ocean exists. When we play the "well what caused that" game, we end up not being able to confirm anything exists.

 

[hobelim]

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

did Jesus say those words ?

According to scripture, yes. I still see nothing that needs to be corrected except how people interpret the written words.

As the fulfillment of the promise of God sending another prophet like Moses who would speak for God specifically to convey all of his commands, deuteronomy 18:18, Jesus taught and demonstrated in word and deed the only right way to understand and conform to the laws demands, the only truth from God himself that results in the fulfillment of the eternal life promised for obedience. No one can enter the realm of God or stand in his presence while on earth who does not righteously conform to the laws demands, hence, no one comes to the Father except through me.

there is no doubt, the parable of Noah is the religion of the bible set by the Almighty with or without whatever is a Messiah. The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

I think I got the gist of what you said, but I had to use my universal intergalactic translator.

Still, no.

Falsehoods are many, truth is one.

However many religions there are or have been good will never triumph over evil without the life received from God through comprehension of the revelation of his Messiah whose primary purpose was to bear witness to the truth..To accept his testimony is to attest that God speaks the truth.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't see any need to correct scripture.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

did Jesus say those words ?

And even if a meteor strike is eventually confirmed as the cause that in itself would not in any way invalidate the hidden instruction in the flood story or disprove that there was a man who was warned by God about the coming doom.

there is no doubt, the parable of Noah is the religion of the bible set by the Almighty with or without whatever is a Messiah. The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

.

I hope everyone understands that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life and brings people to his father - not you - hot he - not she - not they - not I - nor anyone else. What he decides we have to accept. The problem for us all is it not to be in conflict with him and the will of our all father in heaven: god. If we like to find Jesus - better to say to be found from Jesus - who brings us to the father - we have to seek for life and truth. Where life is - where truth is - is Jesus.

 

[there4eyeM]

Even 'scripture' states that Jesus only taught in parables/metaphors. It requires intelligent penetration, not superficiality, to understand. In fact, it can be stated that the most literal, facile interpretation is the wrong one.

 

[zaangalewa]

...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl

ppl? people?

on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.

While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?

I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.

That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.

2,As to your nt blib.

What?

I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.

¿God is allknowing?

Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?

Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?

Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?

I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.

3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.

I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.

4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull

The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.

but because the body count has become unsustainable.

?

5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.

Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.

"combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.

And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.

If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.

Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.

A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.

If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.

I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.

 

[forkup]

...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl

ppl? people?

on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.

While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?

I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.

That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.

2,As to your nt blib.

What?

I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.

¿God is allknowing?

Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?

Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?

Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?

I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.

3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.

I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.

4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull

The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.

but because the body count has become unsustainable.

?

5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.

Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.

"combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.

And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.

If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.

Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.

A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.

If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.

I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.

Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.

 

[ChrisL]

...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl

ppl? people?

on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.

While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?

I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.

That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.

2,As to your nt blib.

What?

I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.

¿God is allknowing?

Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?

Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?

Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?

I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.

3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.

I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.

4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull

The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.

but because the body count has become unsustainable.

?

5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.

Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.

"combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.

And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.

If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.

Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.

A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.

If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.

I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.

Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.

So . . . who made up the Ten Commandments. Many religious folks live by the Ten Commandments and will tell you they are the "word of God." I guess they just pick and choose which stories are "parables" and those that are "real?"

 

[ChrisL]

...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl

ppl? people?

on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.

While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?

I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.

That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.

2,As to your nt blib.

What?

I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.

¿God is allknowing?

Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?

Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?

Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?

I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.

3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.

I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.

4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull

The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.

but because the body count has become unsustainable.

?

5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.

Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.

"combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.

And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.

If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.

Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.

A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.

If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.

I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.

Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.

So . . . who made up the Ten Commandments. Many religious folks live by the Ten Commandments and will tell you they are the "word of God." I guess they just pick and choose which stories are "parables" and those that are "real?"

Sorry, I probably should have addressed this to the other poster who claims that the stories are "parables" and that religious folks know this.

 

[ChrisL]

So, did Moses go up on the mountain and receive the Ten Commandments from God and speak with God through a "burning bush?" Or is that just a parable?

 

[ChrisL]

Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"

 

[forkup]

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.

I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson . The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions. Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis). So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.

Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments. He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works. See your link and my previous link. He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.

The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample? In some cases, we don’t know. Such cases are useless for radiometric dating. We must know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically. Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that. Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.

Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.

There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
"H2D+ becomes enriched relative to

because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier ΔE1 to return to

, i.e.,

, where ΔE1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of ΔE1 restricts deuterium enrichments in

to the coldest gas,

. Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."

In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction. So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.

Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."

So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens. The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio). Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.

Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.

When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old. That reasoning fails because the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid. All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time. The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.

Jonathon Woolf
An Essay on Radiometric Dating

I'll be honest again this looks like you are more knowledgable. Then again,
Do we have observational evidence?



The answer is yes. On several occasions, astronomers have been able to analyze the radiation produced by supernovas. In a supernova, the vast amount of energy released creates every known nuclide via atomic fusion and fission. Some of these nuclides are radioactive. We can detect the presence of the various nuclides by spectrographic analysis of the supernova’s radiation. We can also detect the characteristic radiation signatures of radioactive decay in those nuclides. We can use that information to calculate the half-lives of those nuclides. In every case where this has been done, the measured radiation intensity and the calculated half-life of the nuclide from the supernova matches extremely well with measurements of that nuclide made here on Earth.

that's from your link. plus I got my link from the USGS not exactly a disreputable source don't you agree. But I see you ONLY went after radiometric data. You didn't answer the geology part. So in geology Rocks tell tales, layers of rocks contain different fossils, and those layers and fossils are consistent troughout the world. You won't find a Permian age fossil in a Creatacous fossil layer.... ever. You won't find A Cretatacous age fossil in a Paleogene layer, etc. In other words it's very easy to see the history of life in the fossil record. It also very clearly shows where Humanoids AKA humans came into the picture. Guess when .... in the Pliocene after a bunch of other ages. So unless you're suggesting that rocks form in a matter of days a 7 day creation becomes problematic.Also some event's leave distinc markers. Like a massive decrease in fossils between the Permian and Triassic period. There's a similar marker between the cretacous and the Paleogene known as the K-T bounderary. Before, dinosaurs where everywhere after it they where gone. The interesting thing about that bounderary is that it contains relatively high concentrations of Iridium. A very rare element on earth's crust. It is however abundant in astroids. It is like all layers global. Suggesting very strongly an impact event. My point is there's an overwhelming case to be made for an earth with alot of history before humans.Just based on the fossil record available. Here's another one. In a young earth the sky would be a very empty place. Light needs time to reach earth 6000 years Is actually local on a cosmic scale. Stars that are farther then 6000 lightyears would be invisible on earth because the light wouldn't have reached us. All these facts are mutually supportive and don't rely on the fact that somehow ppl could reach 950 years of age to make it feasable, let alone proven.

 

[there4eyeM]

Mark 21:21

 

[BreezeWood]

However many religions there are or have been good will never triumph over evil without the life received from God through comprehension of the revelation of his Messiah whose primary purpose was to bear witness to the truth..To accept his testimony is to attest that God speaks the truth.

.
for the Spoken religion there is no possible way to respond to your post - everything in your book is hearsay, nothing authenticated by its principle the ten commandments destroyed and the heretic worshiped by biblicists.


good will never triumph over evil ...

good luck then at least you will not be drowned - the caveat not withstanding, the messiah.

.

 

[hobelim]

Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"

Rising from the dead is a metaphor.

First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.

Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.

 

[james bond]

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.

I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson . The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions. Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis). So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.

Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments. He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works. See your link and my previous link. He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.

The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample? In some cases, we don’t know. Such cases are useless for radiometric dating. We must know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically. Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that. Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.

Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.

There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
"H2D+ becomes enriched relative to

because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier ΔE1 to return to

, i.e.,

, where ΔE1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of ΔE1 restricts deuterium enrichments in

to the coldest gas,

. Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."

In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction. So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.

Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."

So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens. The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio). Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.

Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.

When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old. That reasoning fails because the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid. All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time. The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.

Jonathon Woolf
An Essay on Radiometric Dating

I'll be honest again this looks like you are more knowledgable. Then again,
Do we have observational evidence?



The answer is yes. On several occasions, astronomers have been able to analyze the radiation produced by supernovas. In a supernova, the vast amount of energy released creates every known nuclide via atomic fusion and fission. Some of these nuclides are radioactive. We can detect the presence of the various nuclides by spectrographic analysis of the supernova’s radiation. We can also detect the characteristic radiation signatures of radioactive decay in those nuclides. We can use that information to calculate the half-lives of those nuclides. In every case where this has been done, the measured radiation intensity and the calculated half-life of the nuclide from the supernova matches extremely well with measurements of that nuclide made here on Earth.

that's from your link. plus I got my link from the USGS not exactly a disreputable source don't you agree. But I see you ONLY went after radiometric data. You didn't answer the geology part. So in geology Rocks tell tales, layers of rocks contain different fossils, and those layers and fossils are consistent troughout the world. You won't find a Permian age fossil in a Creatacous fossil layer.... ever. You won't find A Cretatacous age fossil in a Paleogene layer, etc. In other words it's very easy to see the history of life in the fossil record. It also very clearly shows where Humanoids AKA humans came into the picture. Guess when .... in the Pliocene after a bunch of other ages. So unless you're suggesting that rocks form in a matter of days a 7 day creation becomes problematic.Also some event's leave distinc markers. Like a massive decrease in fossils between the Permian and Triassic period. There's a similar marker between the cretacous and the Paleogene known as the K-T bounderary. Before, dinosaurs where everywhere after it they where gone. The interesting thing about that bounderary is that it contains relatively high concentrations of Iridium. A very rare element on earth's crust. It is however abundant in astroids. It is like all layers global. Suggesting very strongly an impact event. My point is there's an overwhelming case to be made for an earth with alot of history before humans.Just based on the fossil record available. Here's another one. In a young earth the sky would be a very empty place. Light needs time to reach earth 6000 years Is actually local on a cosmic scale. Stars that are farther then 6000 lightyears would be invisible on earth because the light wouldn't have reached us. All these facts are mutually supportive and don't rely on the fact that somehow ppl could reach 950 years of age to make it feasable, let alone proven.

No question about the half-life or exponential decay of the nuclide. That can be done experimentally and we do not need radioactive material (thank God) to show it. It can be done with dice.

201 dice were rolled and all the "ones" were removed and counted at each throw. The process was simulated five times for comparison with the actual experiment.

Again, what we do not know is how much it started with. To the layman, here is a pretty good video to explain the process. Below that is the scientific argument against it. All we can tell from radiometric dating is how long the material being measured is decaying, not how old it is.

Bill Nye Explains Half Life




As for your USGS and layers, the basic assumption or worldview is not correct. USGS base their findings on unifamitarianism. Creation scientists base their findings on catastrophism. As throughout history, we find that evos are usurping catastrophism for their own purposes.

Anomalies to USGS

"To the tourist industry, it’s a real money spinner. To its European discoverers in the 1870s, it was a rock that appeared more wonderful every time it was viewed. To the Australian Aborigines, it was a place of shelter and special ceremonies. In some of their legends it came into being as a result of 40 days and 40 nights of rain. To the geologists, however, it has been a perplexing puzzle, so they have largely ignored it.

But despite the silence of the geologists, the publicity from the tourist industry has ensured that Ayers Rock has become one of Australia’s most famous landmarks. Situated in Australia’s arid red heart, the Rock is almost 460 km (285 miles) due south-west of the township of Alice Springs. Visited by thousands of tourists each year, it rises abruptly on all sides from the surrounding flat desert plains to a height of about 350 m (1,140 ft). This single massive Rock measures 9 km (5.6 miles) around its base, and stands in an awesome and solitary grandeur that can be only fully appreciated by those who visit its silent and desolate abode in Central Australia."

Ayers Rock - creation.com

I'll address more your geology part in my next post.

 

[ChrisL]

Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"

Rising from the dead is a metaphor.

First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.

Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.

That's not what it says in the Bible. It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!