Evidence in Scripture disproving god once and for all

Originally posted by noobfun
im not scared of the boogeyman so why be scared of somthing else thats imaginary

You're not scared of the boogeyman??!
That's just because you haven't seen him...
But that line of thought is illogical, because we all know that he exists, even though we can't see him (most of the time).
Surely you wouldn't ignore all the sightings of this boogeyman - and all the personal experiences?
It would be illogical to deny all that 'evidence'...


(I thought I'd take the opposite approach in an attempt to reveal how illogical it is to fear something which has no evidence of existing - or worse yet, to judge someone who has higher standards for their beliefs - namely evidence. I'm lookin' at you, Christians!)

[edit on 26-12-2008 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by noobfun


And Goodwolf:

well ill be waiting just like all the other atheists/agnostics

will we have to wait long? just dont want to get my hopes up if its gonna take a while

Hi guys!

Another 2 cents worth:

First it will require a new pair of glasses!

And...letting go of totalitarian tactics. How can an ID ever be proven if the argument is not explored, or is not even allowed to be talked about in science communities, schools, etc.?

Why has this created such division amongst those who are not fearful to discuss the origin of life to those who want to limit the possibilities and focus on only accepted reasoning's?

Fact: there is no scientific evidence according to many scientists that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Fact: there is no evidence according to many scientists that there is NOT and Intelligent Designer.

The science community has gone against its original tenants it first propounded: freedom of thought, study and research, freedom to brainstorm and look for all possibilities. But when it comes to something as important as the origin, or the start of everything, where it includes ID, this is forbidden!!

Perhaps herein, lies part of the problem: if we lose freedom of speech and freedom to explore without prejudice, we are no different than the prim/narrow Victorians, and the bigoted brainwashed people we despise.

reply to post by MatrixProphet

Fact: there is no scientific evidence according to many scientists that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Fact: there is no evidence according to many scientists that there is NOT and Intelligent Designer.

That's exactly why it's not science. The scientific method can't explore things like this if no tests can be done. Philosophy and religious studies can explore the idea all they like, but it isn't science period.

reply to post by Good Wolf

That's exactly why it's not science. The scientific method can't explore things like this if no tests can be done. Philosophy and religious studies can explore the idea all they like, but it isn't science period.

Correct! So it shouldn't be the mainstay of our beliefs - then. We cannot understand how the world and the cosmos works if we leave out any tenant of understanding. If one area is limited and we use only that one - how much are we limiting our intelligence and the facts? How narrow do we become?

A logical thought would be: "Oh!" Perhaps the logic and exploration of an ID would come through another venue!" "Perhaps science is not the end all!"

So why give it more credit, than credit is due?

Yet...I see and hear so many doing so!

Yet...Philosophy and imagination DOES exist even if science cannot explain it.

Hi,
Folks are attempting to look at God, divine, whatever label is used, in an academic way. And trying to disprove the existence. It's not gonna happen. Reason why, is that spirituality is an experiental path. Once the expereinces start occuring, academic research can invariably, support it all. I know from expereince. I teach spiritual things.

I'm not going off-topic, this goes to whether a creative force exists or not. with what i teach, Reiki, it is in actual fact the creative force that gives life to all things, that pervades all things. It is non-religious, spiritual of nature. ANd is not faith healing. Indeed, a person is not required to beleive in it, or any other spiritual thing in order to feel it's effects. A 10 minute initiation enables another to permanetely expereince this creative force. Usually, this materializes as warmth and tingling, or cold sensations in the hands, a profund feeling of relaxation also, with healing of known, and not immediately aware conditions, on the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual levels.

What this has got to do with the topic is that if someone has never expereinced the divine in any way, then naturally they may not beleive it. Religion is not the only way, irrespective of what way they say. Trying to disprove God adademically is futile, and also by finding inconsistencies in a collection of opinions covering many 100's of years, called the Bible. Forget the folks who say it is the word of God. We know that the Church today has long had it's own controlling agenda.

However, this in no way invaildates the existence of the Divine, who pre-dates all of it. I suggest for folks attempting to disprove God, instead, try to find proof of God. By experiencing the creative force. Reiki, Qigong, Kuji-in, Quantum Touch. Goggle these things, and go expereince. In all my years teaching these things, i have never known one person to not expereince what should be.

Alternatively, disregard what i say, and keep trying to win a 'logical' debate on the existence of God. BTW, i also suggest checking out Quantum Physics also. Science meets God somewhat there. Zero point/point of creation for a start. :-) .

Take care
Wayne

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Hi guys!

Another 2 cents worth:

First it will require a new pair of glasses!

like these ones?

And...letting go of totalitarian tactics. How can an ID ever be proven if the argument is not explored,

it cant it doesnt actually have an argument to make

it says evolution is wrong and somthing around here must be irriducably complex and everytime it pulls an ahha! moment and shows what its discovered scientists look at it think for a few minutes after they stop laughing and point out numerous examples of intermediary versions of the so called irriducably complex thing

its not based on science just has a few people running around with ph.d's

or is not even allowed to be talked about in science communities, schools, etc.?

when it manages to do somthing scientific then scientists will be happy to discuss it

schools is a big no no becasue its religeon pretending to be science, and religeon isnt allowed in science class, those dam pesky seperation of church from state laws

Why has this created such division amongst those who are not fearful to discuss the origin of life to those who want to limit the possibilities and focus on only accepted reasoning's?

ummm we discuss them all the time

creationism, ID< progressive creationism, the problem is while we understand those most of the religeous dont understand evolution so we end up spending all our time telling them that evolution doesnt say monkeys should give birth to men and crocoducks shouldnt happen no matter how much your preacher insisted this is what evolutioin says

Fact: there is no scientific evidence according to many scientists that there is an Intelligent Designer.

Fact: there is no evidence according to many scientists that there is NOT and Intelligent Designer.

oh dear ...


skip to 2:12

The science community has gone against its original tenants it first propounded: freedom of thought, study and research, freedom to brainstorm and look for all possibilities. But when it comes to something as important as the origin, or the start of everything, where it includes ID, this is forbidden!!

its not forbidden

what you missed out is it wont accept supernatural as a valid explenation as it doesnt explain anything and restricts further research into the subject, and has as long as the scientific method has existed

ID relises on supernatural

if they came up with a model of ID that could conform to the scientific method(which it cant) and doesnt include the need for supernatural(which they cant) then science would be more then willing to take a look

science class is for science, religeous studies class is for religeon like ID


im having a video day can you tell?

reply to post by noobfun

like these ones?

Ahh, not!!!


We cannot give an exercise to someone or something that is not qualified! Meaning; discovering an ID and being willing to discuss it without using a method that wouldn't work! We cannot intelligently give credit where credit is not due. It is important to keep this in mind, if one wants to grow.

There are plenty out there that are willing to bull-s@#t anyone who is willing to listen to them. If they have charisma and degrees to back them up, then, it can be a psychological con game waiting to happen!

One would think that religion would be qualified to discuss an ID. But are they? Have they proven that they are unbiased? Have they proven that they are willing to look at all aspects of ID without putting their slant on it? Do they have prejudices regarding ID? Do they even know who God is?

Do not religious members end up making religion their God, promoting their dogmatic beliefs related to him whether HE agrees or not? What does ID REALLY have to do with religion? In my world...nothing!

But, they sure have done the greatest con game of all! They have convinced you and countless atheists and agnostics that they have the monopoly on God. Most of you have fallen for it.

Can we say that science is qualified to discuss the subject of ID without their slant? Would atheists who are scientifically minded have a broad view of this entity? Or would they be like religion with a very narrow view that fits their prejudices? Are some of its members capable of doing a con job?

I include Hawkins in this. How on earth would he be qualified to even discuss this subject in an intelligent way with all of his prejudices? I have listened to some of his speeches and interviews. He may be qualified in his area of knowledge and experience but may be an idiot outside of it.

Do you honestly, now tell me honestly...do you really view him as brilliant? I think of you as being intelligent. Him? Come on! He is a big part of the con! Can you not see it? Well, he is laughing all the way to the bank with his book; "The God Delusion." What right does a scientist have to qualify an existence of ID since you said, science cannot answer most of the questions. It requires outside philosophy and higher abstract reasoning. How is he qualified to do this? HE is mixing what you consider religious views (God and his limited understanding) with his scientific views. They don't mesh with you all!!

Don't give any one of them your power! How have they earned it? They become an expert in a field of science and all of a sudden, they are an authority on everything, including the biggest subject of all: ID?

I am with you on PHD's. Some are brilliant and some are idiots. That goes for all fields of study. But humans will worship who they will worship!!

It is like people saying they look for a religion that fits their lifestyle or beliefs, regardless of whether there is any accuracy or not!

The same can be said about followers of science. There are diametrically opposed views from scientists in the same fields...it's like choose your poison!!

Man will have an opinion and because it is your very own opinion it must be right! What's different? We all have belly buttons just like we all have an opinion. It doesn't mean a darn thing. So humility means knowing our limitations. This needs to be applied to science and anyone who feels they know it all.

What a concept; not all answers will come through science!

Unless there is incontrovertible proof that there is no ID while using all levels of intellect, reasoning in all fields possible, to make a judgment that there isn't one without exhausting all avenues, then it becomes plain ignorance with a dash of prejudice.

Especially when we have the biggest loophole of all: how did everything start, including crystals? Who, or what, started life? Hawkins doesn't know. Neither does any other atheist.


But it doesn't mean that others don't!!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Ahh, not!!!

biblical glasses what a great concept of the lundicrous thanks ken ham your a comedy genius

We cannot give an exercise to someone or something that is not qualified! Meaning; discovering an ID and being willing to discuss it without using a method that wouldn't work! We cannot intelligently give credit where credit is not due. It is important to keep this in mind, if one wants to grow.

well it isnt a coherant hypothesis to begin testing

and with the wedge document becoming public it shows it for what it is

nothing more then a flimsy excuse to get religeon into science by anymeans possible so creationism can be pulled in later

There are plenty out there that are willing to bull-s@#t anyone who is willing to listen to them. If they have charisma and degrees to back them up, then, it can be a psychological con game waiting to happen!

ken ham? kent hovind(although he doesnt really hold a ph.d)

]But, they sure have done the greatest con game of all! They have convinced you and countless atheists and agnostics that they have the monopoly on God. Most of you have fallen for it.

no they have convinced me they dont have a clue what theya re talking about in general

they have no monopoly on imagination

Can we say that science is qualified to discuss the subject of ID without their slant?

they discuss it as much as they need, they look at it say this isnt science its wishful thinking so lets get back to doing real work

Would atheists who are scientifically minded have a broad view of this entity?

which entity?

i can have a broad view of anything it doesnt make it anymore real then a narrow view of the same thing

i ask the same of all things, give me evidence or please stop making emotional pleas and go find some

Or would they be like religion with a very narrow view that fits their prejudices? Are some of its members capable of doing a con job?

some are, they are people after all

I include Hawkins in this. How on earth would he be qualified to even discuss this subject in an intelligent way with all of his prejudices?

becasue he understands evolution and the fact complex can come from simple by naturalistic methods and has done for his whole career

remeber ID has only been around since creationism was banned from bieng taught in the 80's, and now attemting to gain support from other groups such as the aliens amde us and some other higher power but not the christain god

his bias are the same as against creationism, its not scientific and science shows it really didnt happen that way

I have listened to some of his speeches and interviews. He may be qualified in his area of knowledge and experience but may be an idiot outside of it.

and he has floppy hair

well ill listen to him on his area of knowledge and expertise and go find find others for others,

Do you honestly, now tell me honestly...do you really view him as brilliant?

he is a fairly good biologist, not a bad author, terrible dresser

he is a person, he has things about him that are good and others that arnt

I think of you as being intelligent. Him? Come on! He is a big part of the con! Can you not see it?

which con?

the religeon still hasnt turned up any proof con?
the stop brainwashing kids and give them a proper education in more then just biblical scholarship con?

what con? you refer to it but dont deffine what it is

religeon is a con it requires acceptance without evidence
in some it request payment again without any evidence, and not all that money goes to help people that need it (well unless you really think people nwanting a better sound sytem in church is more needy then starving people)

Well, he is laughing all the way to the bank with his book; "The God Delusion."

that remins me i really should finihs readin that book i brought it at the start of the month and ive read 2 other books since

What right does a scientist have to qualify an existence of ID since you said,

it pretends to be science, so a scientist is just the right person to see if it really does meet the scientific method

science cannot answer most of the questions.

most of what questions?
it looks at what can and cant be tested and observed

HE is mixing what you consider religious views (God and his limited understanding) with his scientific views. They don't mesh with you all!!

you have read the god delusion?

im about 1/2 way through and the only time he mentions evolution is when exploring religeons arguments for why they must be right for us bieng here

you keep using the term ID but not as its meant, ID is the term for a psuedo-scientific methedology to place religeon in science class

I am with you on PHD's. Some are brilliant and some are idiots. That goes for all fields of study. But humans will worship who they will worship!!

well i dont perticularily worship anyone

people are people they should be admired and respected for thier achievments

you seem to think becasue i posted a clip from a lecture Dawkins is suddenly a god .....

if i post a clip of bert and ernie from sesame street showing a point im making does that make them my religeous figures to?

much bias shown? isnt that the same thing your accusing Dawkins of? an especially intresting bias jump when you watch the whole lecture and read the lectures name

the lecture it was taken from is actually entitled

Richard Dawkins: 'Science Can't Disprove God!'

it was taken from his 'god delusion' book tour, even in the book he states quite clearly science cannot disprove god or anything else thats supernatural for that matter ghosts fairies unicorns the giant magnetic field eating space duck that ate mercuries when no one was looking

the book its self spends much more time dealing with what religeon says about god then actually adressing god, i dunno im 1/2 way through maybe he changes tact entierley in the second half ill go finish the book and find out

It is like people saying they look for a religion that fits their lifestyle or beliefs, regardless of whether there is any accuracy or not!

actually people usually follow the religeon of thier parents or the most prolific in the area they live

so you may be saying that but your the one saying it

The same can be said about followers of science. There are diametrically opposed views from scientists in the same fields...it's like choose your poison!!

but science relise on evidence and as new evidence turns up minds change

and often both sides turn out to be partially right, so they keep only that which is right and discard the rest

when creationism was proven wrong was the parts of the bible removed that refer to it? or was the belief just changed to fit the new facts for some and the biblical glasses and ear plugs pulled out for others

Man will have an opinion and because it is your very own opinion it must be right!

why must it?

never change your opinion on anything?

thanks for the demonstration of this with your post, but we are not all stuck in a rut

So humility means knowing our limitations. This needs to be applied to science and anyone who feels they know it all.

science knows its limits that why it wont touch the supernatural

but houldnt the same be applied to any religeous belief? that they should know thier limits and be honest about what they actually know and what they just think?

What a concept; not all answers will come through science!

but its producing more then any faith has

almost everything youve said can be spun around and laid back at religeous belief and religeous people,

Unless there is incontrovertible proof that there is no ID while using all levels of intellect, reasoning in all fields possible, to make a judgment that there isn't one without exhausting all avenues, then it becomes plain ignorance with a dash of prejudice.

the burden of proof lays with the claimiant, so all avenues of reasoning intellect testing observation should be leveled at proving any form of a god is real,

science doesntcare one way or the other it doesnt dabble in supernatural

so its for the bleivers to get off thier arses and try and prove it not just sit around saying cant prove me wrong so i must be right ..as your doing

Especially when we have the biggest loophole of all: how did everything start, including crystals? Who, or what, started life? Hawkins doesn't know. Neither does any other atheist.

but religeon claims to and then does nothing about proving it

so which is better honesty or delusion and lazyness?

which is more honest? bieng honest and saying we dont know, or saying i must be right becasue you dont know?

that is why its not an equal 50% becasue you cant prove anything the weight of the argument goes against you until such time as evidence is presented

but thank you for an excellent display of the same bias that you have just accused science of

and for discrediting from a position that has no authority, again the same thing your accusing of

take a couple of deep breaths have a nice relaxing cup of tea and analyse your post using your field of expertise and see what you think of it, and compare what your accusing off with your own wording



[edit on 28/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Obviously I touched some cords! That is good.

I also keep calling him Hawkins...reminds me of a hawk? Freudian slip?

I also recognized that he has accomplishments in his area of expertise. But in all the documentaries and interviews I have watched, he seems to be a willing science GURU that most lean on, and quote, as tho he were a god.

It will be so nice when you can get beyond the religious theme! Once you stop relating ID/God to religion and religious teachings we may get some where. This seems to be a block?

The methodology of "proof" about a God using the same tools that science uses - won't work, unless you can open your eyes.

Even Einstein said something to the effect; there is more mathematical proof in the existence of God than not. Which brings up occam's razor, in which to most of us, and probably Einstein, the simplicity of a higher power being the creator vs. trying to convolute a theory that is much harder to prove and has never been proven, is much more logical.

Since your Dawkins and others have openly admitted that they cannot disprove the existence of a higher power/ID/God, and cannot come up with the answer as to the start or beginning of everything - then the simplest answer would be that HE EXISTS.

Just the evolving or creating and replicating of one cell gives us the indication that it is far more likely that there was a super energy force behind the cell. Einstein agreed and this was the basis of his questioning and reasoning on his/its existence.

But getting down to basics; all I have to do is look at the wonder of the eye and the bird with its wings and natural instincts. The ability to reason beyond the animals and to create, using skills that not all humans have. The wonders of the universe to see that it does not take anyone, or anything, to show, or to prove to me, the existence of a higher power. If this is beyond anyone's sight, or willingness to see, then, there is little to talk of, and to reason on.

It has been fun, but I will say auvoir, and see you dudes on other threads!

Thanks for doing this with me!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Obviously I touched some cords! That is good.

not really

the reason is becasue your doing exactly the same as your accusing others of doing, your making your arguments from a poor position with out realising they can easily be turned on your own views and the same results shown

its this not universally application that touches a nerve

its like calling an irishman a racist drunken paddy

I also keep calling him Hawkins...reminds me of a hawk? Freudian slip?

thought you were slipping between Dawkins and stepehn hawkings and spelling it wrong

I also recognized that he has accomplishments in his area of expertise. But in all the documentaries and interviews I have watched, he seems to be a willing science GURU that most lean on, and quote, as tho he were a god.

he makes sense in the things he says (well some of the time) i also quote sam harris wow i have several gods -_-

he talks about science becasue science deals with how things get here by natural casues, they show there is no need for a god to exist not that god doesnt exist

and what is the usual claim of any religeon, it can only be here if god made it, he explores what religeons say not god its self as we cant quantify god and everyone has thier own version despite bieng in the same religeon

It will be so nice when you can get beyond the religious theme! Once you stop relating ID/God to religion and religious teachings we may get some where. This seems to be a block?

we look at religeons many varaitions of god and see them all to be false and ficticious

the fact sceince shows how things can get here without the need for a creator, then we will carry on without one until one can be proven, bring proof we will revise our thinking

its not a block except which your creating, religeon is badly flawed, theres no evidence of a creator, we dont really need a creator so carry on until one turns up

The methodology of "proof" about a God using the same tools that science uses - won't work, unless you can open your eyes.

ohh dear the same thing every religeon comes out with believe enough and it will happen

its like believing in tinkerbell to bring her back to life

if you believe enough you convince your self, its a commonly observed psychological phenomina you find things to prove that belief if its true or not

Even Einstein said something to the effect; there is more mathematical proof in the existence of God than not.

not dragging this out again, didnt we cover this a couple of pages back

there is no mathmatical proof of god there is mathmatical proof of mathmatics

to attribute it to god you need to deffine god first, not make a version that fits in the facts in hindsight

occams razor this is going to get messy

Which brings up occam's razor, in which to most of us, and probably Einstein, the simplicity of a higher power being the creator vs. trying to convolute a theory that is much harder to prove and has never been proven, is much more logical.

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible,

natural laws as already observed need far less assumption then an unproven supernatural diety powerful enough to do it

occams razor goes for natural over supernatural everytime

becasue natural can be observed tested and shown not to be pure assumption

Since your Dawkins and others have openly admitted that they cannot disprove the existence of a higher power/ID/God, and cannot come up with the answer as to the start or beginning of everything - then the simplest answer would be that HE EXISTS.

my Dawkins? i own him? slavery was abolished over 200 years ago in britain

logical fallacy, its an argument from personal incredulaty or failure of imagination

oo another Dawkins video i know you love him soo

Just the evolving or creating and replicating of one cell gives us the indication that it is far more likely that there was a super energy force behind the cell. Einstein agreed and this was the basis of his questioning and reasoning on his/its existence.

wow and another fallacy

well Einstein was wrong, but then again he wasnt aware of modern scientific breakthroughs so he is excused

how does a modern cell show this? an organic cell formed from organic compounds carrying out organic chemistry

and cells now are far more complex then they were

szostak labs research shows somthing very interesting that refutes this (wish i got endorsment fee's for everytime i say thier name id be a millionair on the forum)


now this is observed and proven stuff

But getting down to basics; all I have to do is look at the wonder of the eye and the bird with its wings and natural instincts.

you have been hanging around creationist websies again

shall i pull out the documentation that shows how natural selection can form our eye so easily? and hawks eyes are far more complex then ours so why use human eyes?

same for wings

and doesnt the natural instict bit give it away?

The ability to reason beyond the animals and to create, using skills that not all humans have.

our congnative abilities arnt all that different from those found in other species, on a more advanced scale yes but still the same as shown in other animals

our tools use is more complex but many others animals us tools, chimps even make spears to hunt with did they learn it? maybe but they use them in a way we dont to hunt somthing we use projectiles and traps to hunt

if its found in nature as well a naturalistic explenation makes more sense then wild deviation to supernatural

The wonders of the universe to see that it does not take anyone, or anything, to show, or to prove to me, the existence of a higher power. If this is beyond anyone's sight, or willingness to see, then, there is little to talk of, and to reason on.

it is great and magnificent and all the more so for bieng a purley natural construct

i feel slightly insulted when the great works and wonders are tarnished by crediting it to somthing thats quite possably an act of imagination

It has been fun, but I will say auvoir, and see you dudes on other threads!

cya later

Thanks for doing this with me!

hope we helped

[edit on 28/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Don't try to show me have I understand religion. Because you dont have a clue.

I look at religion in a whole different way then most people. I dont just take what others write and say for a fact like most people. I make up my own opinion. I read first then i think.
I dont use or take what others say,write and think as a reason to argue a fact. I dont have trust in human work.

Originally posted by spy66

Don't try to show me have I understand religion. Because you dont have a clue.

i didnt

you made an appeal to force in your comment i pointed it out, its a fear tactic just like theya re using in the video

I look at religion in a whole different way then most people. I dont just take what others write and say for a fact like most people.

generalisations much?

I make up my own opinion. I read first then i think.

try reading some evolutionary thoery then, you have clearly shown your mind is made up without reading any of it

I dont have trust in human work.

then i feel kinda sorry for you, its the only one we have, and mistrust leads to bad things for all

reply to post by noobfun


Ok i have and i am not happy.... now you figure this one out. Read carefully.

How would time,space and matter create Life or a bacteria.

What gasses and matter would you need to have to sustain or create a bacteria that can create a organic evolution and a Micro evolution.

Did the Big Bang create a bacteria or gasses that can sustain or create a bacteria. How!!!
Have can you have oxygen without some bacteria. What could created the oxygen or gas with bacteria.

How did the big bang create H20.

Where did the matter in the Big Bang get it from.

What equation can you show me that tells me that the Big Bang created a gas or a bacteria that can produce life.

To have faith in God you would have to be sure of other things as well.

Like creation.







[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66


Ok i have and i am not happy.... now you figure this one out. Read carefully.

from the wording your using your really havnt, what you have read is creationist sillyness

How would time,space and matter create Life or a bacteria.

chemistry thats how

What gasses and matter would you need to have to sustain or create a bacteria that can create a organic evolution and a Micro evolution.

what a organic evolution?

evolution only deals with biological so there is ONLY organic evolution

not a xxx evolution and a xxx evolution, there is evolution

gasses and elements .... ones that form organic compounds, that recobine to make greater and greater compounds (they do this all by them selves) infact the ones found on the earth in plentiful supply and still are, hell they even litter space

Did the Big Bang create a bacteria or gasses that can sustain or create a bacteria. How!!!

the big bang is a wave of explosion originating from a singularity, it didnt really create anything (well possibly the dimensions?) just released them all from the singularity they existed in

what made the gasses and elements? i know becasue i actually went and looked

ill give you a clue .. look to the stars

Have can you have oxygen without some bacteria. What could created the oxygen or gas with bacteria.

this question doesnt really make sense

way back on early earth oxygen was present but in very small amount compared to now

life didnt need it, infact it makes it harder for life to get going, but over time organic compounds formed organic structures which carried outsimple organic chemistry(the first basic cells )

and some started using the sun as a direct source of energy (early photosynthesis) which released oxygen, and with nothing around to breath it it just built up over time

How did the big bang create H20.

it didnt it realesed vast quantaties of hydrogen

and the hydrogen did all the work

Where did the matter in the Big Bang get it from.

who cares it was there

just becasue we dont know somthing doesnt mean god did it, thats a logical fallacy

you have to prove god did it to claim it, we can make up any reason we want for it to be there but it would be nonsense without evidence just like saying god did it

What equation can you show me that tells me that the Big Bang created a gas or a bacteria that can produce life.

ok maybe you need to learn astrophysics as well as evolution

bigbang = astrophysics
abiogenesis=chemistry
evolution =biology

you see why only creationists get them confused? becasue they dont know anything about any of them

what equation can you show me that proves god did it?

you want all the proof given to you, and if it doesnt match what you want you never seem to offer proof back

To have faith in God you would have to be sure of other things as well.

no faith in god is faith in god you dont need anything else other wise it would be "faith in god and somthing else"

Like creation.

literal biblical translation is optional for most of the worlds christains, and most of them think its all a bit silly to believe it literally

why becasue they have a betetr understanding of science maybe, or they follow a path closer to the bible teachings .. who knows

but its optional

Godness can't be explain by rationality, not that God is not rational but god is in our heart. So we can't use our mind to try to 'think it out'.
There must be reason why there are big religions and they are here for for many years. Their essence are the same just that people's ego are trying to make their own religion the biggest and trying to philosophized the essence to suit their own personal gains/comfort.
Simply, they teach us to do good things. If we can't even achieve that, why talk about omnipotent/omnipresence etc......

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Or they are really primitive beliefs, standardised as a method of control and power syphon for the elite. That's what history indicates anyway.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by noobfun


All i see is that you cant explain diddly squat.

Organic evolution just happen man that has to be a religion on it's own.

When you say that the Big Bang created hydrogen. Ok from what. A singularity!!!! My god that explains everything

An other thing. The amount of time you all talk about in science. Where would the MOON be if you go back 4 billion years.

I can help you out a bit.

The force of attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

For example if you take the moon in 1/3 of its distans, the force of attraction would be 9 times grater.

Now do the Math if the earth is 4 billion years old.

If you believe that the moon was made out of debris circling earth. What gravity(energy) would you need to make the debris emerge into a moon.
Where would you get the Gravity(energy) from.

I still believe god put it all there. Unless you can bring some facts to disprove the assumption.

And yeah just for the record: Show me the equation of singularity that has what can make hydrogen out of the other elements that is not suppose to be there. Thats assuming you are saying that the Big Bang was from just a sigularity and blew up in a space that has nothing.

I would like you to show me and the others that equation.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66

All i see is that you cant explain diddly squat.

Some one is in denial


Someone is also at a variance with the scientific and academic communities.

reply to post by Good Wolf



Well you can have your if i can have mine

Originally posted by spy66

All i see is that you cant explain diddly squat.

we shall see

Organic evolution just happen man that has to be a religion on it's own.

it does just happen but it just happens becasue things die and breed with variance

the nature of life its self casues it to happen

When you say that the Big Bang created hydrogen. Ok from what. A singularity!!!! My god that explains everything

it explains it enough for now

you till think becasue we dont know somthing it must be god

the bible says god makes rainbows by hanging his hunting bow in the sky, we know that isnt the case though, so for hundreds of years people said how does a rainbow get there, god does it

your just another rainbowist

there are multipul possabilities why the signularity was there, and why it was a singularity including god did it, but until some evidnece for any of them is found picking one and saying this must be the way is absurd

like saying demons make people ill, its a guess made from superstition, and the bible says demons make people sick, virus's and bacteria are hardly demonic

An other thing. The amount of time you all talk about in science. Where would the MOON be if you go back 4 billion years.

closer then it is now about 12,500-20,000 miles, because i know your about to drag poor mathmatics from a creationist website detailing the moons breaking away from orbit

its tidal drag its not moving at a constant rate, its speeding up so the mathmatics showing that 2.8 inches a year x 4billion years puts it in the center of earth is badly misleading

until the earths mantel cooled enough for water molecules to become liquid and in suffient enough mass for it to drag against the moons gravity it wa in perfect sincrinous orbit

infact 4 billion years ago the moon may have still been forming but it contained the majority of the mass it does now

I can help you out a bit.

The force of attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

For example if you take the moon in 1/3 of its distans, the force of attraction would be 9 times grater.

Now do the Math if the earth is 4 billion years old.

the age has nothing to do with it

the moon formed with enough moment to keep its orbit stable as predicted by physics

when the oceans formed the moon became tidally locked which slowed both the earth and the moons rotation lessening both gravitational fields, so rather then the two staying in syncrinous orbit the weakening gravity slips its grasp and he start moving away from each other

we have a few more billion years before we lose it all together, although our second borrowed moon we lose in around 5000 years

If you believe that the moon was made out of debris circling earth. What gravity(energy) would you need to make the debris emerge into a moon.
Where would you get the Gravity(energy) from.

you dont need to get gravity, good god how can you confuse an idea more, grvaity is a constant its everywhere, you dont pull out a bag of it and sprinkle it around

it requires only the gravity we find on earth becasue much of the projecta floated off into space, low impacts account for the mass coalescing

www.vanderbilt.edu... theres stil work to be done thats why science is fun

if you want moe detailed information try actually emailing an astrophysacist they will in most cases be happy to help

if you have a youtube account (if not just make one its simple) and go have a chat in this group uk.youtube.com... several of them hold degrees and ph.d's in physics they are more then willing to answer, and are more knolwedgable about the subject then me

I still believe god put it all there. Unless you can bring some facts to disprove the assumption.

why must I bring facts?

am i the only person on the forum with scientific knowledge? is there no one else in the world with more knowledge?

why not look for the facts your self?

this is a simple cop out stratergy, physics isnt my thing i prefer biology and palentology and struggle to get close to keeping up with new advancments and finds in those fields

www.boulder.swri.edu... this link contains Dr Canup's work email, she may reply she may not but she is the one leading the field in moon formation via giant impact hypothesis computer modeling

the truth is out there, so stop sitting on your ass in a forum waiting for it to find you

And yeah just for the record: Show me the equation of singularity that has what can make hydrogen out of the other elements that is not suppose to be there.

making elements from hydrogen is simple its called nucelar fussion, stars do it everyday thats where our elements come from we and everything in the universe is essential star dust

again show me show me why should i bother learning for my self when i can make up a simple answer and not bother looking into it

who says hydrogens not supposed to be there? if its not supposed to be there the designer did a terrible job becasue its everywhere

www.phys.vt.edu...
nuclearplanet.com...

theres some info on stars to get you started and thier fission/fussion

as for the singularity, read a few books by steven hawkings, and on quantum physics

go out and learn the actual science, like i say biology floats my boat so thats what i research read and why i hang around the evolution forum, not the physcis forum (is there one? never checked)

your buying the dream, its more of a nightmare of the few really. that evolution and cosmology and science as a whole is athiest, it isnt it deals with expalining what is, it doesnt say god didnt do it it says this is how it happened

it could quite conceivably be it happened that way becasue its gods plan

most evolutionists are christains and most christains are evolutionists

infact there are far more hindu or muslim creationists then there are christain creationists

havnt you noticed when i am arguing science i am arguing against creationism science

but when i argue religeon i do it with its own texts

theres a reason for that, science and religeon can happily get along just ask one of the many religeous scientists

to believe evolution is not to disbelieve god, thats a simple lie
to believe the big bang is not to believe in god, thats another simple lie



personnal i accept evolution becasue of the evidence
i dont beleive in a god becasue of a lack of evidence

i accepted evolution back when i still believed in god, accepting evolution didnt lead me from god, reading the bible did asking questions of religeous teachers in ability to answer questions and instead of saying i dont know they made stuff up and lied, the things thye said had no founding in the bible

I would like you to show me and the others that equation.

id like you to show me evidence god did it, ive been asking for years and no ones ever managed it, maybe you can?

see ive looked, ive looked at the science(well some of it theres an aweful lots of science) and ive looked for the evidence of god doing it and found lies, so then i went looking for the evidence of god ... and didnt find any

so now im gonna try your tactic, im gonna sit here and demand you bring me evidence becasue i cant be bothered to go look myself

give me formulas and theories and evidence of god and that he did it other wise your lying and completley wrong obviously

[edit on 29/12/08 by noobfun]