Science isn’t always the answer.

[RetiredGySgt]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did. I ask for proof man evolved from ape.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

did not use the term you all did.

False. You used the term first, here. You made the claim. Now you are squirming and having to lie. All to protect yourself from defining the term.

 

[forkup]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did. I ask for proof man evolved from ape.

Didn't you?

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

did not use the term you all did.

False. You used the term first, here. You made the claim. Now you are squirming and having to lie. All to protect yourself from defining the term.

Ok LINK to ME saying it first? Or at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did. I ask for proof man evolved from ape.

Didn't you?

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

That was IN REPLY now find me saying it FIRST?

 

[forkup]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did. I ask for proof man evolved from ape.

Didn't you?

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

That was IN REPLY now find me saying it FIRST?

Lol and then you wonder why people think you gonna move the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did.

now find me saying it FIRST?

AGAIN, it is you who made a claim. A claim that both Fort Fun and me (although I already did in this OP, if you accept the definition of transitional species) will be happy to disprove. But first so you can't use these dodges we would like to know what YOU, as in you personally would consider a "transition species". That is not an unreasonable request. Look it up online or come up with your own definition (providing it makes sense).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok LINK to ME saying it first? Or at all.

No, you said it. You know you said it. You spent 5 pages whining your ass off about it.

Like i said, you will never define your term. Not ever. And everyone knows why.

 

[forkup]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did. I ask for proof man evolved from ape.

Didn't you?

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

That was IN REPLY now find me saying it FIRST?

By the way how much sense does that make? If you want to assert that somebody said it before you. Irrelevant to the discussion but fine, doesn't it make sense that you do that? After all, it's YOUR assertion. Why do you ask me to support your claim?

 

[Hollie]

if you're not Christian, get the hell out of America, and never come back. America is a Christian nation, that's how it was founded

America was not founded as a Christian nation. Has it occurred to you that the words Jesus or God appear nowhere in the body of the Constitution?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ basquebromance, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: The various patchwork of Settlers came like the Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock (1620) for various reasons. The Pilgrims came with the "principles and characteristics - their devotion to God and the Bible, to freedom and to tolerance, and their embodiment of courage, brotherhood, and individual moral character."

if you're not Christian, get the hell out of America, and never come back. America is a Christian nation, that's how it was founded

America was not founded as a Christian nation. Has it occurred to you that the words Jesus or God appear nowhere in the body of the Constitution?

(COMMENT)

Each of the first settlements established had their own story, but gradually became zealots in their own right. The Witch Trails was an example of the shift from communities of religious freedoms to deadly intolerance. The Salem Witch trails condemned 18+ women to death in the Spring of 1692 and well over a hundred were subsequently accused of witchcraft later in the year.

While America has claimed to be a land of Religious Freedoms, anti-Catholic activities excitedly grew right up to the beginning of the Civil War.

America does not have a history of being religiously tolerant. In 1939, when the NAZIs came to power, America had the opportunity to save over 900 Jewish Passengers that were about the MS St Louis. However, Aerica declined to let them disembark. Ultimately they were sent back to Europe which was becoming subject to NAZI occupation.

It took more than a century after the Mayflower landing before America was to forge its own character as to the nature of what it meant to be American. And it took another two centuries for America to apply the civil rights to everyone. It is a continuous struggle that we still grapple with today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[LittleNipper]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ LittleNipper, et al,

When was this established and by whom?

BLUF: I simply believe that this is a false Bible Pounding...

Some do come to believe. However it takes a humble heart. Not everyone is willing to accept that their tradition is only that. Jews, Muslims, Hindi, and Buddhists are born into their belief. That is even true of many so-called "christians". However to be a TRUE CHRISTIAN, one must be BORN-AGAIN!

(COMMENT)
There is no such thing as a "True Christian." This "Born Again" label is merely an Evangelistic sales gimmik.

View attachment 342884
View attachment 342892
Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, Vol 1, Pg 285
​

The term Christ (Hebrew mâshîach, messiah*; Greek christos, anointed) recapitulates the confession of Christian faith. The whole body of titles attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are summed up in this word, which has semantically subsumed all other titles that indicate
the identity of Jesus (Lord, Son of God*, and so on) and has imposed itself in the designation of the one called Jesus Christ. This is so true that in Antioch, the “disciples of the way” of Christ were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Later, Ignatius of Antioch invented the
neologism “Christianity (Ad Magn. 10. 3, SC 10 bis, 105).

For this obvious reason, many other articles in this encyclopedia take up in one way or another the subject of Jesus in history* and in Christian dogma*: the Son of the Father* in the Trinity, the Son* of man, the Servant, the Lamb* of God. They deal with his “mysteries”
(Incarnation*, Passion*, Resurrection*) as well as with the development of Christology (particularly on the basis of the first seven ecumenical councils*). On the other hand, the primary motivation for Christology lies in the doctrine of salvation. This article, devoted
principally to the human-divine identity of Christ, sets out a synthesis and refers throughout to relevant specialized articles.

Most Respectfully,
R

John 3:1-21 King James Version (KJV)
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
King James Version (KJV)

 

[forkup]

Again RETARD it is YOUR JOB to prove to me that such exists it is not my job to prove one exists.

You are not being asked to do so. You are only being asked to define your terms. Its a simple request. Define "transitional species". If you understand the term enough to be confident that we have never found one, then you can define it.

Then i will attempt to refute your claim and to support the claim that we have found one.

So...the definition?

Sorry I am not doing your work for you.

Defining your own term is your work. Youre asking me to provide examples of transitional species. As soon as you tell me what that means, i will attempt to do so.

But you won't.

It is pretty simple really YOU claim they exist so it is on YOU to prove that point, not mine to provide you the proof you need

He isn't asking you to prove anything. He is asking you to clarify a term you used ( transitional species) to describe something he has to provide in order to rebuff your assertion that it doesn't exist. That's a reasonable request. The fact that you seem unwilling to clearly define what you claim doesn't exist speaks volumes.

If I claim the color blue doesn't exist and you show me something sky blue after which I claim it's not dark enough to be recognized as blue, you will never be able to resolve the truth of your assertion. You defining "transitional species" something you are adamant on that it doesn't exist, prevents you from moving the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did. I ask for proof man evolved from ape.

Didn't you?

As for transition species you can not find a single one.

That was IN REPLY now find me saying it FIRST?

Lol and then you wonder why people think you gonna move the goalposts.

I did not use the term you all did.

now find me saying it FIRST?

AGAIN, it is you who made a claim. A claim that both Fort Fun and me (although I already did in this OP, if you accept the definition of transitional species) will be happy to disprove. But first so you can't use these dodges we would like to know what YOU, as in you personally would consider a "transition species". That is not an unreasonable request. Look it up online or come up with your own definition (providing it makes sense).

I often wonder what most people get out of this forum. I personally am here to test the truth of what I believe. Being wrong which happens on occasions is very uncomfortable but also the only time I feel I've actually accomplished something here. Most of the people here if not all though are different. They rather be considered a coward or a liar than facing the fact that they might have been mistaken.

What you have proven RetiredGySgt is that you know that you are wrong otherwise you would have no problem putting us in a position to test the truth of your claim. But rather than risk this to become apparent you first lie and than run when those lies are exposed.

So can I ask what is it you get out of this?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ LittleNipper, et al,

When was this established and by whom?

BLUF: I simply believe that this is a false Bible Pounding...

Some do come to believe. However it takes a humble heart. Not everyone is willing to accept that their tradition is only that. Jews, Muslims, Hindi, and Buddhists are born into their belief. That is even true of many so-called "christians". However to be a TRUE CHRISTIAN, one must be BORN-AGAIN!

(COMMENT)
There is no such thing as a "True Christian." This "Born Again" label is merely an Evangelistic sales gimmik.

View attachment 342884
View attachment 342892
Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, Vol 1, Pg 285
​

The term Christ (Hebrew mâshîach, messiah*; Greek christos, anointed) recapitulates the confession of Christian faith. The whole body of titles attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are summed up in this word, which has semantically subsumed all other titles that indicate
the identity of Jesus (Lord, Son of God*, and so on) and has imposed itself in the designation of the one called Jesus Christ. This is so true that in Antioch, the “disciples of the way” of Christ were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Later, Ignatius of Antioch invented the
neologism “Christianity (Ad Magn. 10. 3, SC 10 bis, 105).

For this obvious reason, many other articles in this encyclopedia take up in one way or another the subject of Jesus in history* and in Christian dogma*: the Son of the Father* in the Trinity, the Son* of man, the Servant, the Lamb* of God. They deal with his “mysteries”
(Incarnation*, Passion*, Resurrection*) as well as with the development of Christology (particularly on the basis of the first seven ecumenical councils*). On the other hand, the primary motivation for Christology lies in the doctrine of salvation. This article, devoted
principally to the human-divine identity of Christ, sets out a synthesis and refers throughout to relevant specialized articles.

Most Respectfully,
R

John 3:1-21 King James Version (KJV)
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
King James Version (KJV)

I don't see how any of the above addresses religious intolerance in the early America's.

The library of congress (link below), has an enormous catalog of early American history. It’s also important to remember that the framers of the Constitution were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

 

[sealybobo]

I'm sure all you atheists walk in lock step, don't you?

You're very confused. Atheists don't share any commonality, save for not believing in any magical gods. Yours is not special. In fact, it's the opposite...just another childish myth.

Furthermore, the best thing about being an atheist is not wasting time on communal delusions and gatherings dedicated to them. Keep your magical dogma in your pocket, and you wouldn't even know someone was an atheist.

You guys totally crack me up. You don't believe in God and I do.
The atheists commonality is they don't believe in God.
The Christians commonality is they do.

Aren't we all so special though. lol

It used to be fun arguing the existence of god till one day a group swore he visited and gave them rules. One main rule is believe in me or die. and don’t believe in any other gods.

Nope, He didn't visit to give us rules. He died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world. Those who reject Him are refusing that gift. Pretty simple really.

No it’s not. What you just said requires more questions than gives answers. Do you not get that?

He died on a cross? who did? For me? What gift? So I’m a god who will live forever if I just believe?

Honestly, big deal he died on a cross for me. He’s a god. What a show off. And the amount of suffering since he died on the cross makes dying on a cross seem like a stroll in the park.

An atheist blog spot. I'm so impressed with your research.

Haha..now this is irony. You don't seem too impressed with the research of the entire global scientific community, either. But reading a creationist blog full of laughable lies? Now THAT'S impressive!

The entire global scientific community is not refuting the Bible. You atheists are.

Not the entire scientific community just most of it.

So Hindu, muslims, jews, atheists, Buddhist and most scientists don't believe the virgin birth story.

Hindi, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and many atheists do believe Jesus actually existed. However, there is no safety in numbers if one doesn't have the Messiah on his side.

They don't deny he existed. Based on the information we have, I don't deny Jesus existed either. I have my doubts but I can't say a guy named Jesus wasn't born 2020 years ago.

But, no one who ever met Jesus ever wrote about him. If they did, none of their writings still exist today. We have people who heard about him write about him 10 or 100 years later but that's hearsay.

Plus, Muslim and Hindu don't want you guys to kill or attack them or discriminate against them because we all know how you christians can be if someone "attacks" your messiah so many of them just tell you that they believe he existed and he was a prophet.

And remember, they can't call bullshit on your story the way we do because they have their own bullshit stories. Imagine if Jews attacked your silly fairytale. They'd be calling bullshit on their own story. And just like you, they are waiting for a messiah to visit. He just hasn't yet, according to them.

So think about that. The people Jesus lived with were jews who were also told the messiah is coming but they say he hasn't come yet. They say the Jesus myth didn't happen, but you base your entire life on this myth because you were born into this bullshit? You sound just like a Muslim talking about Mohammad. Dumb.

Yes, you have many questions. Those questions have answers. The answers are right there in the Bible, but one has to understand the plot of the Bible. When Jesus came, He came to the lost sheep of Israel, just as the Prophets predicted. The Jews rejected Him, because they were expecting a conquering king, which was predicted, instead of a suffering servant, which was also predicted. They didn't understand that He came first as a suffering servant -- to die and then raise from the dead. When He returns as a conquering King, the Jews will finally realize their mistake.

Yes, too much information for this thread, I know. But that's basically the difference between Jews and Gentiles (non Jews). When Jesus was rejected by Jewish leaders, and crucified, He turned to the Gentiles, and they were offered the free gift of salvation. They didn't have to earn their salvation by keeping the Law, but could rest and trust in Jesus' work on the cross. His payment for sins. It's actually a beautiful plan.

I do know the story. Don’t talk down to me. And the more answers you give, the more questions come.

Because the answers can’t be in the Bible. First we are calling bs on the things said in that book.

and the things you can’t explain scientifically are the reason Christianity can’t even be categ as a scientific theory of fact.

Yes its a scientific theory that Jesus of Nazareth existed but no theory that his mom was a virgin or that he rose from the dead.

you want us to buy into your story but it’s too flawed. And you want to have faith that stuff is real? Sorry, our minds don’t work that way. It’s not evil to have common sense.

If there were a god he would reward our intelligence

 

[sealybobo]

Yep even satan knows He exists.

^^

The never-petty sunday brunch WASP way of saying that even satan is better than atheists

No, you atheists are being blinded by satan, and you still have a chance to trust in the Lord. Satan doesn't. He is evil and you are just blind. Big difference.

First you have to convince us god exists before you can go talking about satan. You don't get to say we don't believe because of satan. We are listening to you with open minds. We'd love to believe your stories but we just can't.

Is satan the master of common sense logic and reason?

Open minds? LOL

Actually, I do get to say whatever I want. You don't have to listen or respond. I'm simply explaining what the Bible teaches. And truth be told, the Bible is read by people all over the world. So, you can scoff all you want. It's really not my problem. Don't accept the Gift of God. Just know it's offered.

What is that called? Argument ad populum? I don’t care how many people read that book. If mo

And

Yep even satan knows He exists.

^^

The never-petty sunday brunch WASP way of saying that even satan is better than atheists

No, you atheists are being blinded by satan, and you still have a chance to trust in the Lord. Satan doesn't. He is evil and you are just blind. Big difference.

First you have to convince us god exists before you can go talking about satan. You don't get to say we don't believe because of satan. We are listening to you with open minds. We'd love to believe your stories but we just can't.

Is satan the master of common sense logic and reason?

Open minds? LOL

Actually, I do get to say whatever I want. You don't have to listen or respond. I'm simply explaining what the Bible teaches. And truth be told, the Bible is read by people all over the world. So, you can scoff all you want. It's really not my problem. Don't accept the Gift of God. Just know it's offered.

I have a completely open mind. In fact I too was brainwashed from birth into your religion. So the fact I got away from the cult says I do have an open mind.

The scientific process says challenge everything including authority and don’t believe something just because someone tells you it’s true. That’s what you want. To believe you on faith.

so I’m not rejecting god. When I meet him I will accept him. What will I say? I’ll ask him which holy book was real because there are hundreds to choose from.

If more humans were Muslims would you then convert? So why does it matter people all over the world believe?

Again, I’m not rejecting god. I’m rejecting your religion is all.

Is there a god? I don’t know. Doesn’t seem that way. If you throw out all the holy books ever written. If religions were never invented, what evidence do you have a god exists? I like debating with those kinds of theists. Just don’t try to use a holy book of evidence for anything.

 

[sealybobo]

Open minds?

Absolutely. Any evidence-based thinker is infinitely more open minded than you are.

You are NOT open minded you are dogmatic at claiming guesses are facts. You have absolute Faith in science even though it knows so little while dismissing thousands of years of religion.

One of the oldest profession. Priests and prostitution

 

[sealybobo]

You are NOT open minded you are dogmatic at claiming guesses are facts.

What dogma?

I didn't claim guesses were facts, ya shameless little liar.

I don't have absolute faith in science. That's just you being a whiny baby and trying to drag down honorable evidence based thinking into the shitty muck where your magical faith resides...since that's the only way you could ever get them on the same level...

Scence is nothing more then guess and then assumptions. Very few things science claims are proven yet YOU BELIEVE with out facts, just admit it you lying loser.

Science says challenge anything that doesn’t make sense. This is why Islam squashed science when it took over that part of the world.

christianity still fights science today for its reasons. Not as bad as Islam but still.

All we believe is your religions are all lies. Not just all the others except yours. Yours too.

We miss the days before Moses said he met and talked to god. Then it was fun debating the existence of god. I’m even open minded to the idea. But don’t come to us with those holy books

 

[ding]

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

I didn't realise that not knowing something required evidence. It's also completely irrelevant

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

The burden of proof is on the person who has the hypothesis, in this case, God created the universe. Not the person you have to convince. If you find a way to falsify (test) your hypothesis the burden would shift to me. And no, logical constructs do not count. Since it only accepts one starting premise and makes several simply unsupported assertions along the way. What you are doing is a trick people who believe in God employ constantly. Trying to shift the burden of proof. It's an appeal to ignorance.

Again I do NOT assert God doesn't exist. I assert that I have no reason to assume he does. Even IF you could convince me your hypothesis has merit, you would still be in exactly the same place of having to actually prove it.

Maybe this illustrates it. I believe in life outside Earth. I'm willing to accept some of this life has developed intelligence along the way. Unless we find evidence of this, whatever this evidence might be the assertion that we know life, let alone intelligent life exist outside Earth is false. It's not the responsibility of those who don't believe either of those things to disprove that aliens don't exist, it's the responsibility of those who do to prove that they do.

This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.

The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: I think that so very often, people confuse "evidence" (it's meaning) and "evidence" (clear and convincing) and "evidence" (conclusive). When we hear or read this word, our minds conjure a thought that we see as:

◈ That which tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.​

​

◈ That which indicating a highly probable or reasonably certainty.​

​

◈ That which so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.​

​

Much as to what has been presented as evidence for the existence of a "Deity" or "Supreme Being" is (most often) not presented in a fashion that it can be seen and evaluated with an outcome that suggests a highly probable set of circumstances or exhibiting a reasonable cause and effect.

On the topic of the "Existence of God," → so very few are open-minded enough to accept new logic presentations without prejudice (for or against).

Statements of Fact:

(S-1) This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.​

※​

​

(S-2) These laws existed before space and time.​

※​

​

(S-3) Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.​

(COMMENT)

Observations:

(O-1) I have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to satisfy an unprejudiced mind seeking the truth or fact.​

​

(O-2) How could we even possibly know what existed before space and time? (RHETORICAL) We do not even know if there is such a thing as "before space and time."​

​

(O-3) Rhetorical Follow-up Questions:​

​

✦ Is there such a thing as "nothing?"​

​

✦ IF there is such a condition of "nothing" THEN what could it create? Is "nothing" a state of being that can independently create something?"​

​

✦ What is a "spirit?" Is a "spirit" an entity? Is a "spirit" a non-entity? Is a "spirit" in the category of the natural? - or - Is a "spirit" in the category of the supernatural?​

How do we distinguish that which is understood by natural laws of the universe from that which is not understood by the natural laws of the universe? Does the acceptance of the concepts of the "spirit" disallow the acceptance of Wicca (harnessing magical powers) or Alchemy (transmutation one substance to another)?

The simple questions asked in your commentary (supra) generate more questions than they lay in response to the subject of the original posting.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: I think that so very often, people confuse "evidence" (it's meaning) and "evidence" (clear and convincing) and "evidence" (conclusive). When we hear or read this word, our minds conjure a thought that we see as:

◈ That which tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.​

​

◈ That which indicating a highly probable or reasonably certainty.​

​

◈ That which so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.​

​

Much as to what has been presented as evidence for the existence of a "Deity" or "Supreme Being" is (most often) not presented in a fashion that it can be seen and evaluated with an outcome that suggests a highly probable set of circumstances or exhibiting a reasonable cause and effect.

On the topic of the "Existence of God," → so very few are open-minded enough to accept new logic presentations without prejudice (for or against).

Statements of Fact:

(S-1) This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.​

※​

​

(S-2) These laws existed before space and time.​

※​

​

(S-3) Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.​

(COMMENT)

Observations:

(O-1) I have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to satisfy an unprejudiced mind seeking the truth or fact.​

​

(O-2) How could we even possibly know what existed before space and time? (RHETORICAL) We do not even know if there is such a thing as "before space and time."​

​

(O-3) Rhetorical Follow-up Questions:​

​

✦ Is there such a thing as "nothing?"​

​

✦ IF there is such a condition of "nothing" THEN what could it create? Is "nothing" a state of being that can independently create something?"​

​

✦ What is a "spirit?" Is a "spirit" an entity? Is a "spirit" a non-entity? Is a "spirit" in the category of the natural? - or - Is a "spirit" in the category of the supernatural?​

How do we distinguish that which is understood by natural laws of the universe from that which is not understood by the natural laws of the universe? Does the acceptance of the concepts of the "spirit" disallow the acceptance of Wicca (harnessing magical powers) or Alchemy (transmutation one substance to another)?

The simple questions asked in your commentary (supra) generate more questions than they lay in response to the subject of the original posting.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you created something, could I use that as evidence?