Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

page: 35
39
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Let me dictate to you my good man, that the only thing going on in this thread, that is naive, is your doubt.

I thank you .
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by daskakik
 


Let me dictate to you my good man, that the only thing going on in this thread, that is naive, is your doubt.

I thank you .
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Actually, you can't be naive and sceptical at the same time...so if he's (rightfully) asking you to back up your belief with objective evidence, which you haven't done in a single thread so far, he's sceptical...ergo, not naive


You could even say it's you who is naive, given that you buy into a belief that has ZERO objective evidence as backup.
edit on 27-6-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Lame attempt at avoiding the facts. I posted some facts which showed how you are mistaken and the best you can do is say that I'm naive. I even pointed out how the story probably came about given the understanding of the people at the time of the great flood which makes sense.

You have offered nothing of substance to back up anything that you are saying except your failed understanding of 75% of earths "surface area" is covered with water.


Surface area is the measure of how much exposed area a solid object has, expressed in square units.



The volume of a solid object is a numerical value given to describe the three-dimensional concept of how much space it occupies.



One-dimensional objects (such as lines) and two-dimensional objects (such as squares) are assigned zero volume in three-dimensional space.


Surface area does not equal volume.

edit on 27-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
And saying a global flood is impossible and a fairytale remains unrealistic propaganda.

The Bible has been around longer, then science or any scientist ( Dawkins ) and therfore trumps both by seniority and wisdom. Not to mention, a perfect moral code to live by, that has stood the test of time.
Therefore, I declare that if scientists ever want to be taken seriously, about any claimed fallacies such as " the flood is a fairytale "? Then scientists, should be the ones to back up their claims, against the already established .and long held truth.

You want people to forget this stuff ? Earn it.


What has science proven about the Bible that just puts it so to shame ? That a bat is not a bird ? Or that there has never been a bird called a Bat ? The populace of believers remains tremendously high for all your efforts.
92% delusional that would be Mr. X's description of mankind. Good thing we all have folks like you around that know better.
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


So you have nothing? The bible has been around longer is all you have to offer?

You do realize that this thread was about science backing up the bible. If you have no intention of doing that then why bother posting here?

Plus your claim as to the great flood has been completely refuted with numbers to boot and not by a scientist. I'm sure one would have done a nicer job than I.
edit on 27-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
So you want me to prove that I think this statement is assinine ?
"the story of the flood is a fairytale"
Or that if the BP deep sea oil gyser, if allowed to go unchecked, would have filled up the whole earth with a gooey muddy corexit laced liquid ? You want me to prove there are possible fountains of water that remain untapped in the earth. ? Or maybe you want me to prove that, there are great casms of space where we have drained the earth of oil ? That large sections of land couldn't sink in on themselves to fill these voids, below sea level ? You want me to prove all these possibilities, to show you the above statement a Dawkins favorite, is
indeed assinine ?

I don't think it's even necessary.

edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason




Plus your claim as to the great flood has been completely refuted with numbers to boot and not by a scientist. I'm sure one would have done a nicer job than I.

Well then I apologise for not including all like minded parrots in the above.
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





And saying a global flood is impossible and a fairytale remains unrealistic propaganda.


You can't be serious


There is ZERO objective evidence for a global flood. An event like that would leave evidence behind, no question about it...but since there is none, the only conclusion is that you believe in a fairy tale. Calling facts "unrealistic propaganda" just shows how ignorant you are of facts





The Bible has been around longer, then science or any scientist ( Dawkins ) and therfore trumps both by seniority and wisdom.


According to that logic, the earth is flat...because after all, people that are way older claimed it to be flat. What a ridiculous argument...I can't believe you're using such a demonstrably wrong argumentation





Not to mention, a perfect moral code to live by, that has stood the test of time.


Morals are shaped by society, not the bible. Hell, most people on this planet never even read the bible.

And don't get me started on the morals in the bible...the very book where rape is ok, or beating your children, or owning slaves.




Therefore, I declare that if scientists ever want to be taken seriously, about any claimed fallacies such as " the flood is a fairytale "? Then scientists, should be the ones to back up their claims, against the already established .and long held truth.


You're in luck...because that's just what they are doing. Take the global flood for example, it's been demonstrated over and over again by scientists that the entire story is just that, a myth that has ZERO objective evidence as backup.

What baffles me, is that you ask scientists to provide evidence...yet you haven't done so once in any of your threads.




What has science proven about the Bible that just puts it so to shame ?


1) Global flood - never happened.
2) People surviving in whales - never happened.
3) Genesis account - completely contradicts the facts we know about.
4) The exodus - never happened in the way the bible tells it.

For more inaccuracies and blatantly wrong stuff in the bible, have a look here.

In short, before going on a giant anti-science rant, you might wanna do some actual research...because if you keep on posting complete and utter nonsense like the above, you'll look incredibly silly in the 21st century.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Why do you keep asking if we want you to prove this or that? You know the claim you made prove it?

All these talks of oil wells and empty space below the earth have nothing to do with the great flood. Last I heard they did not have deep well oil rigs in Noah's lifetime. Yet another fail. Any facts pertinent to your claims would be nice.

Dawkins has nothing to do with this thread your the only one that keeps bringing him up.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I know this isn't proof by the way.



There's no proof.

edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


You guys I'm still looking Ok. I'll find some evidence I know I will. Stay right there, you parrots and propagandists
Ohhh you know ? I have so much fun mess'in with you guys.


edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Your answer perfectly highlights the faulty set of mind creationists have. You state a conclusion, but aren't back it up with facts. Instead, you desperatly keep on searching for evidence, and continue to believe in something that isn't backed up.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



I do think you could very well call it BLIND CHANCE but then that would show that you don't fully understand how things happen in nature. The very choice of words implies that it is something difficult, if not impossible.


Now you can see the dilemma that’s been plaguing the evolution community – what to call their “creator”. Since God was left out of the equation, the evolution community has been grappling since Darwin on how to properly define this purported “creator” known today as “blind chance”. But whatever new definition evolutionist / atheist will attach to it now or in the future – be it “natural forces” (MrXYZ) or “nature” (You) - without intelligence or guidance behind it – it will still remain the same - a “blind chance creator”. And there’s no way out of it and like you said

“it is something difficult, if not impossible”.


And just so you know, it was evolutionists/atheist who originally came up this idea, word or phrase known as "blind chance”.

But as a believer and proponent of Biblical Creation I fully understand the struggle that you're in or for that matter your community – the evolution community is in. The struggle will never be resolve because your belief system is against nature itself and most of all it goes against the very meaning of pure logic and common sense.

You don't believe me? Then let me illustrate.

Think about it for a minute and look at it logically this way:

Let’s say, if you were to come across a manual a million pages thick and written in a highly technical but efficient, elegant code, would you conclude that the book somehow wrote itself?

To me, pure simple logic and common sense will tell me of course not. I would conclude that it was written by a very intelligent person. I'm sure you'll agree with me on this.


Now, what if that book were so small that you needed a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to read it? And what if you discovered that it contained precise instructions for the manufacture of a self-repairing, self-replicating intelligent machine with billions of parts, all of which had to be fitted together at precisely the right time and in the right way?

Will you say that such a book just happened?

Of course not! Only a fool would even entertain such a foolish idea. Agree so far?

Now think of the actual product itself – the DNA – the information contained therein is so staggering and mind boggling that NONE of man’s inventions put together can rival it. Imagine that - all the information that produced our unique body is found in tiny packages that have to be observed under a microscope!

Yet, you want us to believe that – “blind chance” an “unguided process”, an unintelligent Nature created IT, that “chance and chance alone” created everything.

This is what atheist and evolutionist wants everyone to believe. Without even knowing where it came from, they insist that it's a fact. How insane is that? Best of all, where is the LOGIC and common sense in that?

Ironically I get accused by some of you as being IRRATIONAL and get ridiculed because I believe that there’s an intelligent being / creator behind it.

Inspite of the undeniable, irrefutable objective evidence that’s staring them in the eye, the irrational “blind chance” person will blindly follow his/her “blind chance” guides.

So on this Jesus’ words are undeniably 100% correct!

He said:

“. . .LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit. . .” (Matthew 15:14)

What say you then daskakik, do you still believe that your belief system is logical?

Ty,
edmc2

next … the rest of your post.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You keep implying that I or the atheist community is struggling but, at least speaking for myself, there is no struggle. Again it's something that you seem to be trying to force on me.

I have never said that nature created everything. What I said is that nature, which is the same as XYZ's forces of nature, molded what was created. So, much like biogenesis isn't evolution, the creation of the universe isn't the same as the molding of the elements in the universe.

Now it would seem that nature has a way of effortless doing things that man has to labor to do. Your thousand page manual and DNA example is spot on. The problem is that nature does this all the time and appearently without any guidence so if I stumble upon something that I have only seen men make (the manual) I would deduce that it was a product of a guided hand while if I come across a beautiful waterfall in the middle of nowhere I would think that it was a product of nature and that no intelligence was needed.

While your logic makes sense it isn't proof that nature is guided and all of this doesn't even come close to proving that the bible is fact.

Also I don't want anyone to believe anything. I would be happy to accept that nature is guided if you can show proof. I would like to know the truth and not have to depend on faith.

edit on 29-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You obviously can't read


No one is claiming life started based on blind chance. They claim it happened based on physics and natural laws...which makes sense given that everything we can explain is based on those things, and we have ZERO objective evidence for the existence of a creator.

In my opinion, you look beyond silly if you believe in a fairy tales in the 21st century. Either back up your claims with objective evidence, or accept that you're just speculating and filling gaps in knowledge with magic. Just like the guys who claimed plagues were a punishment by god centuries ago. I just think it's kinda sad people can be that incredibly ignorant and stupid in an age where information is freely available. Way to go against the "deny ignorance" mantra of the site


Also, you might wanna read up on probability and game theory...because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. While you're at it, you also might wanna look up the definitions of "logic" and "common sense" as you don't seem to understand what those words mean
edit on 29-6-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You obviously can't read


No one is claiming life started based on blind chance. They claim it happened based on physics and natural laws...which makes sense given that everything we can explain is based on those things, and we have ZERO objective evidence for the existence of a creator.

In my opinion, you look beyond silly if you believe in a fairy tales in the 21st century. Either back up your claims with objective evidence, or accept that you're just speculating and filling gaps in knowledge with magic. Just like the guys who claimed plagues were a punishment by god centuries ago. I just think it's kinda sad people can be that incredibly ignorant and stupid in an age where information is freely available. Way to go against the "deny ignorance" mantra of the site


Also, you might wanna read up on probability and game theory...because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. While you're at it, you also might wanna look up the definitions of "logic" and "common sense" as you don't seem to understand what those words mean
edit on 29-6-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Such a sad commentary MrXXYZZZ - all you can do is attack and ridicule. No substance at all nothing to offer but emptyness.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well, given that it's you who posts stuff without objective evidence as backup, I think it's your posts who have zero substance



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You said that:



You keep implying that I or the atheist community is struggling but, at least speaking for myself, there is no struggle.


Yet, your own words reveal the struggle to identify the creator.

Here's what I mean:

Can you explain what you mean by this statement?


I have never said that nature created everything. What I said is that nature, which is the same as XYZ's forces of nature, molded what was created.


SO if "nature" or "forces of nature" did not create everything, who then is the "creator"?

Will it be "nothing"? or "something"?

If "nothing" - how can nothing create something?

If "something" - who then or what is this something?

Now which one takes MORE FAITH to believe: NOTHING created something?

Or

SOMETHING created SOMETHING?

Or how about this?

Something that ALWAYS EXISTED (uncreated - thereby self sustaining) CREATED and IMPARTED life?

SO you see, even though not you're aware of it or refuse to admit it, you, atheists and evolutionists actually based your belief on FAITH. Faith that NOTHING created something - it takes more faith to have that kind of belief.

Sadly - it's a blind faith - for it's founded on "blind chance". And that's the truth.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I have already answered. I belive that it's something that isn't your god.

I'm not struggling because I am at peace with what I know and with what I don't.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I have already answered. I belive that it's something that isn't your god.

I'm not struggling because I am at peace with what I know and with what I don't.


Unfortunately you did not. You simply chose not to answer it but just went circles - that is


"nature"
or

"forces of nature, molded what was created"


But since your "at peace with what [you] know and with what [you] don't" then I'm cool with that.

I guess this is where I say good luck to you.


I still hope though that someday you will change your mind - that is before it's too late.

ty
edmc2



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Unfortunately you did not. You simply chose not to answer it but just went circles


Actually back around page 22-23 you asked

So do you believe that there’s no Creator – No God? Is that what your faith say?


I responded:

I believe what I believe. I don't go around saying its factual because I know that I can't prove it.


I thought it was clear that I believe something. I thought that and the fact that I keep posting that the bible isn't true made it clear enough but I guess I was wrong.

Now to be honest the turns in the latest pages here have been about nature having or being guided by intelligence. While tied to the creator in your model it doesn't mean that is the actual arrangement which means that one doesn't prove the other.





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join