*What Is Death To An Ahteist*?

[Youwerecreated]

This means what?

Just a creationist with a Ph.d in biology that specialize's in molecular research.

Its great that hes a biologist but a bummer hes a creationist.

Yes ,a very intelligent one that teaches me.

 

[JScott]

If they know the facts lets put you and them to the test.

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of millions of years?

You tell me first

Your side has no answer as to why amino acids are found after supposedly millions of years. The importance of the question is if the fossils were truly the age your side say's they are there should be no amino acids.

Apparently your side has no answer to the question either.

This is one of those questions that causes people to aspire to be scientists.

 

[JScott]

Just a creationist with a Ph.d in biology that specialize's in molecular research.

Its great that hes a biologist but a bummer hes a creationist.

Yes ,a very intelligent one that teaches me.

Does he know why amino acids are still in fossils million of years old?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You tell me first

Your side has no answer as to why amino acids are found after supposedly millions of years. The importance of the question is if the fossils were truly the age your side say's they are there should be no amino acids.

Apparently your side has no answer to the question either.

This is one of those questions that causes people to aspire to be scientists.

Yeah we have an answer and so does your side, they should not survive that long.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its great that hes a biologist but a bummer hes a creationist.

Yes ,a very intelligent one that teaches me.

Does he know why amino acids are still in fossils million of years old?

I answered the question twice.

 

[JScott]

Yes ,a very intelligent one that teaches me.

Does he know why amino acids are still in fossils million of years old?

I answered the question twice.

So what youre saying is as soon as scientists know, creationists will know....

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. People who die, go back to God, and those whom betrayed God, find themsleves in a load of trouble.
2. No ones perfect, I certainly am not, but I believe in God.
3. I have a strong faith in God, and I love Jesus, and he loves me.
4. Unless you love Jesus, you won't have a chance in the after life.
5. Death won't hide you, a coffin won't hide you, being scattered out in the ocean after cremation won't hide you, being fed to wild animals won't hide you, science won't either, nothing no way will hide you from God.
6. Until you realize this, you will remain in a dangerous state.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[HUGGY]

Exactly

Hold applause.

In order to have a rational intelligent conversation on any subject there has to be agreement on the definitions and usage of the wordage. This debate was surprisingly good until the definition of "faith" was stretched beyond it's author's and keepers(dictionary) scope and intent by House and yourself. I enjoy good debate but it gets tedious when the energy to define common minutia exceeds the pleasure of discourse. I do not agree that "faith" encompasses all desire to follow information to fact in the learning process.

No he made the same point i made that you are relying on faith to believe as you do,that life exists out there on other planets with zero evidence for proof.

I have given plenty of evidence showing intelligent design.

I have also shown the necessity for the intelligent design and that it had a purpose to be designed.

Are you telling us a natural process is gonna think up all that a body needs to function ?

I didn't leave you out.

You guys have difficulty absorbing the scientific method. Proof is not finding a magic do-all key to a door or a ready made map to the treasure conveniently noted in modern English.

You are trying too hard to prove you erroneous definition of faith and ignoring any common definition of evidence.

Seldom at a crime scene is the murderer standing next to the corpse with a smoking gun in his hand and the victims skin under his fingernails when the CSI team shows up. That seems to be the level of evidence you are demanding from this debate. The way science works is more like The police get a call of a disturbance. That starts a time-line. Then they poke around and knock on the door and no one answers but maybe the latch is broken. Then they go inside and discover some broken stuff and a tiny amount of blood but no victim. They need to find the occupant of the house. Not there..no one knows where. They go back to those that reported the noise and it sounds like "something" happened in the house.

Do you start to see how this goes? We are WAY short of announcing a murder let alone who might have done it. Yet there is evidence and witnesses that suggest the possibility of something bad happened. The police have no "faith" that anything bad happened yet where they will be needed. They only go on what they see. At best the lead detective,..having been called and arrived, looks at what evidence they have and makes a determination to do anything at all. For all they know the occupants had an argument ..somebody dropped the french fries with the ketsup on them and the couple left on a vacation. As it turns out the door latch had been in disrepair for a long time. None of the police asked each other if any of them had "faith" a crime had been committed. They just filled out a report to account for their time and left. None of the evidence was proof..but it was evidence. So the couple never make it back and the detectives go back to the house and look harder for MORE evidence and they find a baseball bat with a little blood on it and the relatives say there had been a falling out..blah blah blah..All this is MORE evidence and the police believe there might have been a crime after all. OR at least the couple is missing...that's all they know for sure. They are only going to work on a missing persons case at this time..

So what's the point? Evidence. The added facts that build a case. Could we find life? Maybe..but first we need to find a sun like ours with a planet in the right zone to have liquid water. That would be MORE evidence and farther down the time-line. Still not enough to form an opinion of life but without it there is no life as we know it. So we keep looking for clues. Do the scientist have faith there is life yet? Of course not. Would they "like" to find life out there? Maybe. Would I? Probably not. If we find something advanced or they find us first all we know about every form of life is that it eats some other form of life or at the very least benefits from the death of some other form of life.

I'm guessing if an advanced life form discovered our planet and there was something here they needed or wanted..they would just take it. Is that "faith"? No it is an observation of what we know of life. I kinda would prefer we didn't give away our existence in some foolish attempt to meet our celestial neighbors... that may very well think we taste good.

Relevance?

It is relevant in that the real debate is the existence of a GOD with a time line having been established at the time of Moses..if we can believe the Bibles at all. This is because without the theory of this mythical creature there is nothing at all to debate and the evidence of which I support is the ONLY evidence gathered so far that builds a case for life on other worlds or not.

 

[Dr.House]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

 

[HUGGY]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

You have poor deduction skills. The supposition of a flat earth was not "evidence". That statement shows possibly that you are desperate to find supporting material to counter my debate. There is not a scientist on the planet that would call that bit of rubbish "evidence" of anything but stupidity.

I have "faith" in my observation skills. I have "faith" in owning a mind that rarely assumes anything important without a hard look and an attempt to verify. Even THEN I maintain an open mind because many things that seemed to make more sense than not have been proven to not be true at all. It is all in degrees ... there is no absolute understanding..YET. They know there was a "bang" but they have no real confirmed idea what was before that. That does not mean they have NO idea at all. No real scientist would just stop and abandon exploration just because the answers to these questions are difficult to arrive at with a certainty.

I have never since I can recall anything at all been so stupid as to believe anything so ridiculous as a flat earth. It is just too easy to check out and discover that it plainly is not possible.

I get it that you have what you believe is "faith". I believe what you have is something else. I believe what you have is fear....not unlike many people. Assuming a God is the answer to all of your fear is probably necessary to keep you safe and sane. Without that comfort you would feel very alone. That is natural and "normal".

I need no such reassurance.

 

[JScott]

Sorry bout that,


1. People who die, go back to God, and those whom betrayed God, find themsleves in a load of trouble.
2. No ones perfect, I certainly am not, but I believe in God.
3. I have a strong faith in God, and I love Jesus, and he loves me.
4. Unless you love Jesus, you won't have a chance in the after life.
5. Death won't hide you, a coffin won't hide you, being scattered out in the ocean after cremation won't hide you, being fed to wild animals won't hide you, science won't either, nothing now way will hide you from God.
6. Until you realize this, you will remain in a dangerous state.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Thats your opinion, great. I respect that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Does he know why amino acids are still in fossils million of years old?

I answered the question twice.

So what youre saying is as soon as scientists know, creationists will know....

No i'm saying their dating systems are flawed and the fossils accurate age will some day correspond with the global flood.

It's a dilemma for your side because they know that amino acids can't survive that long.

This Dilemma has been around since the 50's and 60's.

What happens if the earth is much younger then you have been lead to believe ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

You have poor deduction skills. The supposition of a flat earth was not "evidence". That statement shows possibly that you are desperate to find supporting material to counter my debate. There is not a scientist on the planet that would call that bit of rubbish "evidence" of anything but stupidity.

I have "faith" in my observation skills. I have "faith" in owning a mind that rarely assumes anything important without a hard look and an attempt to verify. Even THEN I maintain an open mind because many things that seemed to make more sense than not have been proven to not be true at all. It is all in degrees ... there is no absolute understanding..YET. They know there was a "bang" but they have no real confirmed idea what was before that. That does not mean they have NO idea at all. No real scientist would just stop and abandon exploration just because the answers to these questions are difficult to arrive at with a certainty.

I have never since I can recall anything at all been so stupid as to believe anything so ridiculous as a flat earth. It is just too easy to check out and discover that it plainly is not possible.

I get it that you have what you believe is "faith". I believe what you have is something else. I believe what you have is fear....not unlike many people. Assuming a God is the answer to all of your fear is probably necessary to keep you safe and sane. Without that comfort you would feel very alone. That is natural and "normal".

I need no such reassurance.

Huggy a person shows more character when they can just admit when they're wrong ,the word applies to your view.

If a person believes something without physical evidence that persons belief is based on faith.

Mathmatically you can put a figure on anything you like ,that does not mean it will happen because of your odds you figured.

There is either life out there or there is not,based on empirical evidence there is no life out there.

 

[HUGGY]

OK... We have reached a snag... an obstacle to the debate. This impedance is the definition of the word "faith". Faith to non believers is not the same word as to those that believe. To someone like myself it is just another word implying or describing something known or reinforced through trial and error or maybe following something ..an idea reinforced with evidence.. It doesn't mean much more than that. To a Christian the word in itself isn't enough, so it's meaning is expanded dramatically to encompass a whole larger mindset and characterization of the act of giving one's whole focus in life and the choosing of and defending a life's path. Faith to a Christian is a sacrifice, a statement of adoration, a commitment and a guarantee of sorts to adhere to the teachings of Christianity. It is more of a defense than anything.

When Christians say a non believer has "faith" they transfer their own meaning of the word to someone that doesn't even think like that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

You have poor deduction skills. The supposition of a flat earth was not "evidence". That statement shows possibly that you are desperate to find supporting material to counter my debate. There is not a scientist on the planet that would call that bit of rubbish "evidence" of anything but stupidity.

I have "faith" in my observation skills. I have "faith" in owning a mind that rarely assumes anything important without a hard look and an attempt to verify. Even THEN I maintain an open mind because many things that seemed to make more sense than not have been proven to not be true at all. It is all in degrees ... there is no absolute understanding..YET. They know there was a "bang" but they have no real confirmed idea what was before that. That does not mean they have NO idea at all. No real scientist would just stop and abandon exploration just because the answers to these questions are difficult to arrive at with a certainty.

I have never since I can recall anything at all been so stupid as to believe anything so ridiculous as a flat earth. It is just too easy to check out and discover that it plainly is not possible.

I get it that you have what you believe is "faith". I believe what you have is something else. I believe what you have is fear....not unlike many people. Assuming a God is the answer to all of your fear is probably necessary to keep you safe and sane. Without that comfort you would feel very alone. That is natural and "normal".

I need no such reassurance.

Huggy who is showing fear here,you can't seem grasp that your belief is based on faith.

I am just curious as to why you won't admit it ?

Do you believe being honest with yourself is showing weakness ?

Have you not noticed how you guys continue to deflect and try to explain the obvious ?

Have you noticed when cornered you turn to petty insults insinuating you're superior in your reasoning skills and it's clear that is not the case.

Don't get me wrong i am not trying to insult you. I am just trying to have A civil give and take with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

OK... We have reached a snag... an obstacle to the debate. This impedance is the definition of the word "faith". Faith to non believers is not the same word as to those that believe. To someone like myself it is just another word implying or describing something known or reinforced through trial and error or maybe following something ..an idea reinforced with evidence.. It doesn't mean much more than that. To a Christian the word in itself isn't enough, so it's meaning is expanded dramatically to encompass a whole larger mindset and characterization of the act of giving one's whole focus in life and the choosing of and defending a life's path. Faith to a Christian is a sacrifice, a statement of adoration, a commitment and a guarantee of sorts to adhere to the teachings of Christianity. It is more of a defense than anything.

When Christians say a non believer has "faith" they transfer their own meaning of the word to someone that doesn't even think like that.

Are you trying to punt Huggy ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

OK... We have reached a snag... an obstacle to the debate. This impedance is the definition of the word "faith". Faith to non believers is not the same word as to those that believe. To someone like myself it is just another word implying or describing something known or reinforced through trial and error or maybe following something ..an idea reinforced with evidence.. It doesn't mean much more than that. To a Christian the word in itself isn't enough, so it's meaning is expanded dramatically to encompass a whole larger mindset and characterization of the act of giving one's whole focus in life and the choosing of and defending a life's path. Faith to a Christian is a sacrifice, a statement of adoration, a commitment and a guarantee of sorts to adhere to the teachings of Christianity. It is more of a defense than anything.

When Christians say a non believer has "faith" they transfer their own meaning of the word to someone that doesn't even think like that.

Hmm you're are blameing the definition of the word faith on a believer

 

[Dr.House]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

You have poor deduction skills. The supposition of a flat earth was not "evidence". That statement shows possibly that you are desperate to find supporting material to counter my debate. There is not a scientist on the planet that would call that bit of rubbish "evidence" of anything but stupidity.

This is why you are nothing but a joke here... You automatically dismiss the facts that you don't want to hear like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and singling la-la-la-la...

There was no known "evidence" that the world was round before the theory was postulated and then subsequently proven... Both sides had had a faith in their belief as to the shape of the world at the time...

There is no "evidence" of life on other worlds, but you are free to prove your theory that there is... Until then you will continue to hod onto your faith in the belief that there might be...

I have "faith" in my observation skills. I have "faith" in owning a mind that rarely assumes anything important without a hard look and an attempt to verify. Even THEN I maintain an open mind because many things that seemed to make more sense than not have been proven to not be true at all. It is all in degrees ... there is no absolute understanding..YET. They know there was a "bang" but they have no real confirmed idea what was before that. That does not mean they have NO idea at all. No real scientist would just stop and abandon exploration just because the answers to these questions are difficult to arrive at with a certainty.

I am not arguing or debating creationism vs. evolution... You're free to take that up with other posters, but I won't join you... My replies are only to show that you have a faith in the belief that there might be ET's floating around in space... The interesting fact is you mock Christians for having faith in their belief of God... Awesome textbook display of hipocrisy...

I have never since I can recall anything at all been so stupid as to believe anything so ridiculous as a flat earth. It is just too easy to check out and discover that it plainly is not possible.

I have never claimed that you did... People at the time of Colombus did until the theory whas shown to be wrong... That likely removed the faith they had in that belief...

I get it that you have what you believe is "faith". I believe what you have is something else. I believe what you have is fear....not unlike many people. Assuming a God is the answer to all of your fear is probably necessary to keep you safe and sane. Without that comfort you would feel very alone. That is natural and "normal".

I need no such reassurance.

You are free to have this false belief, but I fear nothing and I am not going to debate that with any foolish internet poster who can't even accept the definition of "faith" when provided...

You remain clueless....

 

[HUGGY]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

You have poor deduction skills. The supposition of a flat earth was not "evidence". That statement shows possibly that you are desperate to find supporting material to counter my debate. There is not a scientist on the planet that would call that bit of rubbish "evidence" of anything but stupidity.

This is why you are nothing but a joke here... You automatically dismiss the facts that you don't want to hear like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and singling la-la-la-la...

There was no known "evidence" that the world was round before the theory was postulated and then subsequently proven... Both sides had had a faith in their belief as to the shape of the world at the time...

There is no "evidence" of life on other worlds, but you are free to prove your theory that there is... Until then you will continue to hod onto your faith in the belief that there might be...


I am not arguing or debating creationism vs. evolution... You're free to take that up with other posters, but I won't join you... My replies are only to show that you have a faith in the belief that there might be ET's floating around in space... The interesting fact is you mock Christians for having faith in their belief of God... Awesome textbook display of hipocrisy...

I have never since I can recall anything at all been so stupid as to believe anything so ridiculous as a flat earth. It is just too easy to check out and discover that it plainly is not possible.

I have never claimed that you did... People at the time of Colombus did until the theory whas shown to be wrong... That likely removed the faith they had in that belief...

I get it that you have what you believe is "faith". I believe what you have is something else. I believe what you have is fear....not unlike many people. Assuming a God is the answer to all of your fear is probably necessary to keep you safe and sane. Without that comfort you would feel very alone. That is natural and "normal".

I need no such reassurance.

You are free to have this false belief, but I fear nothing and I am not going to debate that with any foolish internet poster who can't even accept the definition of "faith" when provided...

You remain clueless....

That's more like it. I was starting to think your account had been stolen.

You are correct in one thing. I do not accept your definition or application of the word "faith" as it describes my debate.

Now another deal killer has emerged with your true colors. Oh well. I didn't expect much.. I was truly surprised you made it this far before imploding.

 

[HUGGY]

You are applying unscientific inferrences in your conclusions... Assuming any life elsewhere would behave as it does here... That's like the flat-earthers believed before they knew the world was round... They drew their conclusions based on what they knew at the time...

There is no physical evidence of life on other worlds, but you have a faith in your beliefs that there might be, despite the absence of evidence... I really don't care if you believe in the existence of God or not... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking someone else's faith in their beliefs while ignoring your own...

I'm using the dictionary version of the word "faith"... You can make up your own if you want, but I'll stick to the published version...

You have poor deduction skills. The supposition of a flat earth was not "evidence". That statement shows possibly that you are desperate to find supporting material to counter my debate. There is not a scientist on the planet that would call that bit of rubbish "evidence" of anything but stupidity.

I have "faith" in my observation skills. I have "faith" in owning a mind that rarely assumes anything important without a hard look and an attempt to verify. Even THEN I maintain an open mind because many things that seemed to make more sense than not have been proven to not be true at all. It is all in degrees ... there is no absolute understanding..YET. They know there was a "bang" but they have no real confirmed idea what was before that. That does not mean they have NO idea at all. No real scientist would just stop and abandon exploration just because the answers to these questions are difficult to arrive at with a certainty.

I have never since I can recall anything at all been so stupid as to believe anything so ridiculous as a flat earth. It is just too easy to check out and discover that it plainly is not possible.

I get it that you have what you believe is "faith". I believe what you have is something else. I believe what you have is fear....not unlike many people. Assuming a God is the answer to all of your fear is probably necessary to keep you safe and sane. Without that comfort you would feel very alone. That is natural and "normal".

I need no such reassurance.

Huggy a person shows more character when they can just admit when they're wrong ,the word applies to your view.

If a person believes something without physical evidence that persons belief is based on faith.

Mathmatically you can put a figure on anything you like ,that does not mean it will happen because of your odds you figured.

There is either life out there or there is not,based on empirical evidence there is no life out there.

Giving up in the face of an assault on truth and reason is a skill learned by Christians...me?...not so much.