The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

no that reply was to some one else talking about trig calculus physics ect... and math isnt proof seeing is proof
if i tell you 2 apples and 2 apples are 4 apples and your hungry who cares if its four i havnt gave you anything yet its just numbers

now if your hungry and i give you 2 apples and the i give you 2 more apples then you will know you have apples
you will eat and not be hungry (spiritually )
But i can write four apples on the board all i want but it wont make your hunger go away .........you know what i mean .

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

math isnt strong evidence as a matter of fact it changes its mind more often than religion
Math said once ...............Fact that the earth was flat .......................wrong

Math said once...........fact the earth is the center of the solar system ............wrong

Math said once ........Fact there is no partical smaller than an atom...............Wrong

Math you can keep your facts i want the TRUTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

yes i did copy paste it its the same freekin point why would i write that all over agian sorry im smart lol .................
thaanks for reading though lol

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I have never seen any evidence against what is written, to have any merit

I should clarify. I am specifically talking about evidence against religious claims. Obviously we can’t address things that solely exist in hypothetical realms. If I said the Creator of the Universe was actually not one but many magical pegasi, and they exist in a supernatural realm, never intervene with the physical universe, but you’ll meet them in the afterlife… good luck disproving that. We can be definitively
dismissive of religious claims when the science is conclusive against it. Religions mistakingly make claims about the known Universe. We can address those claims.

There is plenty of evidence against religious claims. I can present some. Astyanax already has.

when it is measured using simple human perspective

I assume you also have ‘simple human perspective’?

and especially when these evidences are presented by totally biased mind

Which you are immune to I take it?

Evidence can be presented to support anything you want, but when it is a want that constructs it, and not a desire for the truth, it will always be lopsided with bias, and bias does push the scales of truth far far away.

Precisely

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

math isnt strong evidence as a matter of fact it changes its mind more often than religion
Math said once ...............Fact that the earth was flat .......................wrong

Math said once...........fact the earth is the center of the solar system ............wrong

Math said once ........Fact there is no partical smaller than an atom...............Wrong

Math you can keep your facts i want the TRUTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are completely wrong on all accounts. Math never said any of those things, humans did.

FACT: Only a small percentage of the population of earth actually thought the earth was flat, and it was a religious viewpoint, not a scientific or mathematical one. Sorry.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I believe he knows already that the so called strong evidence some people think is evidence against creation is totally fallible since these evidences are always based on the limited human condition and frail understanding of time and the universe.

There isn't really evidence against creation, aside from the fact that there is no evidence to support that idea. Science only really goes against the literal translation of the bible stories, not the concept of god or creation.

I have never seen any evidence against what is written, to have any merit when it is measured using simple human perspective, and especially when these evidences are presented by totally biased minds who are "creating their own belief system based on the evidence that they construct against creation being true. Evidence can be presented to support anything you want, but when it is a want that constructs it, and not a desire for the truth, it will always be lopsided with bias, and bias does push the scales of truth far far away.

No offense but science is a method for learning facts which lead us to the truth, so it helps us better understand our world and the universe. It isn't based on want in the least. It's based on scientific experiments and data. Yeah, it's totally fallible, but so are the people that wrote the bible, so take it as you will. Nobody becomes a scientist without having a desire to learn the truth. You don't need scientific evidence to tell you that talking snakes, living inside of whales for days, walking on water, etc etc are impossible. If you want to believe in that stuff, that's fine, but stop criticizing science for following the evidence and looking for REAL answers that aren't based 100% on faith.

a reply to: sweets777

Eh... Math didn't say any of those things. Do you even know what math is? Scientists and notable religious figures (as in the case for the flat earth theory) used to say those things, but math wasn't involved in any of those answers. Math is just numbers buddy.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I believe he knows already that the so called strong evidence some people think is evidence against creation is totally fallible since these evidences are always based on the limited human condition and frail understanding of time and the universe.

There isn't really evidence against creation, aside from the fact that there is no evidence to support that idea. Science only really goes against the literal translation of the bible stories, not the concept of god or creation.

I have never seen any evidence against what is written, to have any merit when it is measured using simple human perspective, and especially when these evidences are presented by totally biased minds who are "creating their own belief system based on the evidence that they construct against creation being true. Evidence can be presented to support anything you want, but when it is a want that constructs it, and not a desire for the truth, it will always be lopsided with bias, and bias does push the scales of truth far far away.

No offense but science is a method for learning facts which lead us to the truth, so it helps us better understand our world and the universe. It isn't based on want in the least. It's based on scientific experiments and data. Yeah, it's totally fallible, but so are the people that wrote the bible, so take it as you will. Nobody becomes a scientist without having a desire to learn the truth. You don't need scientific evidence to tell you that talking snakes, living inside of whales for days, walking on water, etc etc are impossible. If you want to believe in that stuff, that's fine, but stop criticizing science for following the evidence and looking for REAL answers that aren't based 100% on faith.

Duh... No kidding?

It definitely IS based on want though, when people who attempt to make claims about it are so biased that they can't even see the transparency of their bias when it comes crapping out in their posts, like the one I was referring to about WANTING a certain outcome so it suits their desire rather than suiting the truth.

When you read my replies to someone else's post, it would help to read the person's post I am replying to so you can gather the actual meanings and detect all those little meanings that I am rebutting.

Then you wouldn't think I was criticizing science, but rather someone claiming reliance on science when they are actually biased to the point of intellectual dishonesty.

The discussion I was involved in had me responding in good faith to a host of straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, not scientific discovery.

And you also didn't attempt to read my posts with understanding just like they did, and wind up getting everything I said, backwards.
Congratulations.. I'll save my replies for honest discussion next time. Not waste it on 100% biased people.

a reply to: sweets777

Just because people in the past say something doesn't mean it is 100% true. Science is always changing, theories being thrown out for something that makes more sense. People used to say that the sun rotated around the Earth, we have come to understand that is untrue. In the same way, just because someone in the past said the universe is finite does NOT mean that theory will not change with new discoveries. Scientists today are starting to debate whether the universe is finite or infinite, this is because our understanding of the universe is always expanding and growing.

Science does not stay constant, it is always evolving and changing to incorporate new ideas. The universe being infinite and eternal is starting to be considered as an actual possibility. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, meaning neither can the universe, it could not have been created nor destroyed because it is full of energy and is nothing but energy at different frequencies. The Earth is a different frequency of energy than space is, it is at a higher frequency than the empty space around it.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I read every post in this thread. It was mainly these statements that jumped out at me and triggered a response.

these evidences are always based on the limited human condition and frail understanding of time and the universe.

I have never seen any evidence against what is written, to have any merit when it is measured using simple human perspective,

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the evidence is unsubstantiated because humans aren't all knowing, and have a "frail" limited understanding of time and the universe. If that's not want you meant I apologize, I just don't agree with that at all. Most of the evidence is based on scientific experiment, and we might not know everything, but we do know a heck of a lot about the universe. Calling human understanding limited and frail with no point of reference to even compare this understanding to seems a bit silly to me. Human understanding of our world is something that has been evolving for hundreds of years and it's anything but frail. Again, if that wasn't your point, I apologize.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

-Dr. Steven Novella

a reply to: Krazysh0t

math is involved in everything math and numbers are everything i work for a company that used
algorythyms to tell what kind of a care giver you are

look mabey u should stay down in the shallow emd of the pool on this one

Math is the universal language

a reply to: Barcs

well if people read bible for themselves it tells what the earth is and how it hangs in space in the book of job
and seldom does science and religion stray too far away from one another

notice how all the schools and university are owned by the churches notre dame harvard yale
holy cross ect.....strange bedfellows.....and the catholic church has scientist that are priests too
.....but to satans hand they are looking for alien gods with a telescope named lucifer

Dude ..everyone lets be honest we dont have no clue not a rael one anyway

but some one is playing some type of game here

a reply to: GetHyped

uh oh hes a witch burn him ..................lol just kiddin ...............hi

a reply to: sweets777

Well you certainly are showing that you don't know how to read it since Math didn't say any of the things you said. Heck some of the things you said weren't even science (which is the subject you should have said). It would help if you knew your topics seeing as how you claim to work with it there buddy.

But really all you did was list a bunch of things that humans used to believe for one reason or the other. Really the only thing consistent about ANY of those claims is that math wasn't involved in calculating them as true (for instance: anyone using math would discover that the world is round; not flat). Just admit you made a mistake here, drop the snark, and move on.

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Barcs

well if people read bible for themselves it tells what the earth is and how it hangs in space in the book of job
and seldom does science and religion stray too far away from one another

Actually what the earth does in space is COMPLETELY different than what is described in Job.

Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

First off, space isn't empty. Second, the earth isn't "hanging" on anything. It is orbiting a star, which is in turn orbiting a massive black hole, which may or may not be orbiting something else. Not to mention, the earth is crooked and wobbles on its axis (that's why we have seasons) and it spin on its own. Nothing about what the earth is doing in space implies that it is just hanging around.

notice how all the schools and university are owned by the churches notre dame harvard yale
holy cross ect.....strange bedfellows.....and the catholic church has scientist that are priests too
.....but to satans hand they are looking for alien gods with a telescope named lucifer

What are you talking about? Not all schools and universities are owned by churches...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hey you know what they say ..............opinions vary
take care now

a reply to: sweets777

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

-Daniel Patrick Moynihan

a reply to: sweets777

Well that isn't an opinion though. I want through and broke down EXACTLY what is said in Job and exactly what earth does in space and they aren't the same. There is no opinion about any of it. You'd have to change the definitions of words to make it fit, and even then it is too simple of a description of what the earth does. And like I said, space isn't empty. The bible clearly says that space is empty. That is the opposite of reality.

The way the bible describes it, the earth is hanging like a Christmas ornament off of god's finger or something in the middle of space (which is empty).

If the Earth is just hanging out there, then it sounds like it isn't orbiting the Sun. More verses that back up the idea the Bible supports a Geocentric model. Which would make sense since that was the belief of those who authored it at the time. And the position of the church until proven wrong.

My previous post on Geocentric Model