Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

page: 36
39
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





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.


And wrong again. The only right answer is "we don't know". Scientists don't know what happened at the very beginning...they aren't claiming "nothing created something". They ADMIT they don't know.

Religious people on the other hand pretend to have an answer when they really don't. They believe in scriptures written by other MEN who base a lot of it on stories they heard from other men even further back in time. It's as if they can't cope with not knowing. All those different religions only show one thing...people are scared of the unknown.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You said:

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

Your answer was so vague thus it needs clarification - ergo the follow ups.

SO to put this to rest once and for all - you believe that "something" created something but not all things.

You don't know who or what created everything.

This belief, to you is a fact.

Bottom line - you believe in a "creator" whatever that is but not the God that I believed in - YHWH (Jehovah).

That should do it (I think).


SO if you believe in a "creator" why then is my belief invalid since I believe in an all powerful, always existing Creator?


ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



The only right answer is "we don't know". Scientists don't know what happened at the very beginning...they aren't claiming "nothing created something". They ADMIT they don't know.


Yet according to some evolutionists / atheist they believe that "nothing created something".

Notice what SC17 said on his thread - when I ask him/her semilar Q:

he said:




posted on 30-6-2011 @ 11:16 PM this post
reply to post by edmc^2


There is nothing more to explain. Energy can spontaneously come into existent from nothing when there is nothing.



I found the same belief system from other prominent scientists - "blind chance".



ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

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.







I've decided he does more of this then anything and can't at all be taken serious any more. He simply suggests
not believing in anything because there isn't any proof of anything. By his premiss we will never know anything about existence because there will obviously never be any proof as to how we got here. He can't accept the closest thing we will ever have to his objective evidence which is scripture. I've pretty much reduced my opinion
of his presence here to that of a troll. He can bach and squawk all he wants. The only time he gets a reply from me is if my thread needs a bump.
Insult and ridicule, offends any intelegence he has and that can't be a lot, if he can't get that straight in his mind. It's not Ok. 77 flags since 2007 ? Sounds like a lot of trolling to me.

edit on 1-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


edit on 1-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by edmc^2

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.







I've decided he does more of this then anything and can't at all be taken serious any more. He simply suggests
not believing in anything because there isn't any proof of anything. By his premiss we will never know anything about existence because there will obviously never be any proof as to how we got here. He can't accept the closest thing we will ever have to his objective evidence which is scripture. I've pretty much reduced my opinion
of his presence here to that of a troll. He can bach and squawk all he wants. The only time he gets a reply from me is if my thread needs a bump.
Insult and ridicule, offends any intelegence he has and that can't be a lot, if he can't get that straight in his mind. It's not Ok.
edit on 1-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



'Agree. It's sad indeed.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


This will likely be the level of response. This is what you become when you apply the rule of science to life.
"only observable phenomena "




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik
 


SO to put this to rest once and for all - you believe that "something" created something but not all things.
You don't know who or what created everything.
This belief, to you is a fact.


Sorry I was thinkling of page 33, I posted:

Sorry to complicate things but I believe that "unintelligent, unguided natural forces" are responsible for things in general in the universe (physical dimension) and something which I can't define is responsible for the rest.

So something created the universe which would be all matter. Guess you could say it also implemented the rules. Everything else is hands off. Automatic pilot. No intervention. Nature isn't intelligent it just follows the rules.

It isn't fact. It is what I think sounds like a good idea. I'm not fully vested in it and am willing to change if objective facts show the truth to be something different.


SO if you believe in a "creator" why then is my belief invalid since I believe in an all powerful, always existing Creator?


No one ever said your belief is invalid. Just that you have not proven it to be true. Also isn't a belief in one god/religion the reason people believe other religions to be invalid? So if anything it should be the very reason but since I know that I don't really know then I feel that would be wrong.

edit on 1-7-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





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.


And wrong again. The only right answer is "we don't know". Scientists don't know what happened at the very beginning...they aren't claiming "nothing created something". They ADMIT they don't know.

Religious people on the other hand pretend to have an answer when they really don't. They believe in scriptures written by other MEN who base a lot of it on stories they heard from other men even further back in time. It's as if they can't cope with not knowing. All those different religions only show one thing...people are scared of the unknown.



Going back to your past post and the statement above - I can't help but think that you're an Agnostic - you're between an Atheist and Theist.

Reason I say this is because most agnostic does not feel that there is enough evidence to say that God does or does not exist. Rather, he reserves judgment or says that if God does exist he is unknown and unknowable.

Also Agnostics form such belief because of the faults and excesses of the "churches of Christendom".

What you said reminds me of what Thomas H. Huxley said:


“If we could only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have flowed from this source [the churches] along the course of the history of Christian nations, our worst imaginations of Hell would pale beside the vision.”


In other words, people who become Agnostics became that way also due to the shortcomings of established religion.

But you know what though, that type of reasoning is not a valid reason to conclude that God does not exist.

It's like a sick person who has been cheated by a quack doctor, he should not thus conclude that no cure is possible. Rather, he should look around for a genuine doctor. Similarly, the fact that the established churches have turned many people away from God does not mean that God cannot be found. It merely means that you have to look somewhere else for him.

The book of Nature offer the physical evidence of the existence of God, the other book is his word the Bible. It explains there WHY he created Nature.

Based on what I presented in OP - the Bible when examined carefully is indeed God's word.

To prove my point again, lets go back to the OP and would like know if you can honestly provide an answer to Qs I asked:



'Now please consider these very important questions:

Since the Genesis account was written some 3500 years ago (according to Biblical chronology and factual events surrounding its writing), here's the question that I want you to answer:

How did Moses, a “goat herder” (as referred to here on ATS) get the facts right? How did he knew that the universe (heavens) and the earth had a beginning whereas these amazing scientific facts were known just recently (1900s)? How could a man 3500 years ago be able say, write what science just recently discovered? Think also of the amount of time, money, knowledge and technology to conclusively show that the universe had a beginning. Yet a “goat herder” knew the facts! How was it possible?

Wild guess, coincidence, luck, hallucination or did he copied it from other writings as some claim?

What say you? All or any of the above? In any case whatever your answer is, one thing is clear, Moses got it right! Do you agree?'

How did he knew and where did he get the answer? What say you?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
To prove my point again, lets go back to the OP and would like know if you can honestly provide an answer to Qs I asked:


This is going around in circles. It didn't prove your point the first time and it's not going to do it this time. It isn't objective proof.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





I've decided he does more of this then anything and can't at all be taken serious any more. He simply suggests
not believing in anything because there isn't any proof of anything. By his premiss we will never know anything about existence because there will obviously never be any proof as to how we got here.


Maybe we'll figure it out, maybe we won't...and more likely, it'll take us a long time to really figure it out. In the meantime, substituting that lack of knowledge with fairy tales is a laughable approach. It's quite likely we won't figure it out during our lifetimes. Harsh reality





He can't accept the closest thing we will ever have to his objective evidence which is scripture.


Scripture is objective evidence...of what people believed to be true 2,000 years ago based on their compared to today limited knowledge of physics, biology, cosmology, etc.




I've pretty much reduced my opinion
of his presence here to that of a troll. He can bach and squawk all he wants.


That's ok...I'm not posting for your benefit. You made it abundantly clear that you don't care about objective evidence, so no matter what, you'll continue preaching. Won't stop me from pointing out to others that your claims are complete and utter nonsense, and not based on objective evidence. You're posts are always a prime example of "god of the gaps", so thank you for that


edit on 1-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Similarly, the fact that the established churches have turned many people away from God does not mean that God cannot be found. It merely means that you have to look somewhere else for him.


I use my time more productively. I also don't look for unicorns, elves, or anything else that has no objective evidence as backup





Based on what I presented in OP - the Bible when examined carefully is indeed God's word.


Ever heard of circular logic?

The bible is god's word. How do you know? It says so in the bible. But how do you know the bible is correct? Because it's god's word.

And round and round you go





Since the Genesis account was written some 3500 years ago (according to Biblical chronology and factual events surrounding its writing), here's the question that I want you to answer:

How did Moses, a “goat herder” (as referred to here on ATS) get the facts right?


As as been demonstrated numerous times by now, the genesis account isn't correct...hell, it's even inconsistent within the same book


Of course you already know that, but just like in the picture below, you simply ignore the facts in order to preserve your fantasy world:



And you know what...that's you're right. You have the right to believe whatever you want...but trying to convince others it's "the truth" and based on facts is beyond hogwash. And it dumbs down the people.




Moses got it right! Do you agree?


100% not...as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread.


You're a bit like O'Reilly asking the audience how the tides work (because in his mind it has to be god's work), or why only the earth has a moon...even though there's tons of moons in our solar system


Bill...is this you?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


randyvs said that u troll a lot - it's becoming apparent now. It seems like your not really a serious thinker because you keep saying the same useless things over and over again- unicorn this unicorn that, elves this elves that, spaghetti this spaghetti that.... blah...blah...

I wonder though - since the following list of great men of science believe in a Creator - that's God to you, are they also ignorant in your book?

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist)

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist)

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology

ty,
edmc2

edit on 1-7-2011 by edmc^2 because: u



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Are we going to revisit the content of this entire thread?

The fact that these scientists believed in a creater isn't proof of one. It just means you have that in common with them.

edit on 1-7-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Are we going to revisit the content of this entire thread?

The fact that these scientists believed in a creater isn't proof of one. It just means you have that in common with them.

edit on 1-7-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


How does any of the above relate to what is below ? I've heard trolls do multiply fast.


I wonder though - since the following list of great men of science believe in a Creator - that's God to you, are they also ignorant in your book?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The thread is about science proving that the bible is fact. Showing a list of scientists that believed in a creator isn't proof that a creator exists. It has already been discussed on the thread and the OP didn't pony up so why go over it again.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You need only employ the same comprehension that you use to understand the subject matter of the thread
Then I'm sure you will be able to understand the concept of a retort. Please thank you.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





I didn't really understand what this was about ? No big deal.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Thank you for presenting a typical fallacy of defective induction (LINK) on top of your regular god of the gaps arguments, or argument from ignorance (LINK).

Funny how you call me a troll, yet you completely fail at proper argumentation



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I understand his point but it still doesn't prove his original claim.

Something like the hydroplane theory that you posted is what I would expect from someone claiming they have proof. Not saying that it is correct but at least it's a real attempt at explaining something in a scientific way.

Here's a piece on that theory. The title does show bias but there are some good points in it.

A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

edit on 2-7-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Well theory for theory seems all that anyone has. Have you noticed Das that when people do things with a purpose it can't be considered a fail.
edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
39
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join