Simple question for evolutionists

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

. I don't 'happen' to accept evolution or any other scientific principle, it's there, it's supported by evidence.

Bible is also there and is supported by 2000 years of undisputed evidence. That is to say,sound moral theological evidence. Problem is ,is that you are unable to distinguish between physical truth (science), and spiritual truth.Considering man consists of both, you are only receiving half the picture.

in resposnse to the actual OP

My thinking on this is energy can neither be created or destroyed and we are basically energy in a different form (matter)

So lets say at the beginning of the universe there was just energy in its raw form, no space, no time

and since there is no time no beginning and no end

so yeah this energy (whcih exists outside of time) is ordered and like everything else begins to disorder

this disorder creates the big bang, which creates spacetime and converts energy into matter and in turn everything else we can see in the universe today

i know there are probably flaws in what i said and i do not understand other things that come into it but that is my general take on things.

So yeh there was nothing before the big bang because there was no time....or space

and if there was no time then energy wasnt created, in essence energy created time and space and everything else followed out from that

so yeh if there was a god then the god is energy and is not a concious being

hard to wrap my head around that one haha

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by infojunkie2

 

Except...no. The current prevailing scientific thought is that life came from preexisting material under specific conditions, not 'from nothing'. Please, clear the straw man off of the floor on your way out.

I see no straw man here, then if not from nothing you say,but from preexisting material, either someone created that preexisting material or it appeared out of of nowhere,from nothing.

reply to post by infojunkie2
Material is a by-product of light. Give me light, give me 15 billion years, I'll give you a human being, with a properly situated laryngeal nerve this time. (Just to be clear, the "me" in this scenario is random chance following the Darwinian algorithm.)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The Bible is the only 'God book' to predict events well before their time with 100% accuracy. No other god has or ever will do that because they are not The True Eternal God who dwells outside of time. Christianity and the Bible are always trying to be silenced because of the truth contained within its pages.
What I sense from evolutionists is that they are always coming up with all kinds of questions like who created god and they do not like the definition associated to God.
An infinitely intelligent being who dwells in and out of His creation as an invisible spirit and He was not created because he has always existed, because He is not affected by time, He invented time.
If what evos seek to do is change who God is, it will not happen. They can change God in their own mind and make him a limited god without control or soverignty over his creation, but then that is a false god just like baal.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Claiming the big bang has no supporting evidence, for one. By mixing up the names of two different scientists who work in two different fields. By demonstrating a complete ignorance of how science works by asking me to somehow magically derive the entirety of scientific knowledge in the world on my own with my limited lifespan and resources....etc.

Please point out where I said the big bang theory has no supporting evidence? I said it was not proven a completely different thing than saying there was no evidence, and you accuse others of deflecting the issue... And how have I demonstrated ignorance of science? By asking you to prove what you claim? But yet it is ok for you to demand proof or religion and for someone to give you 6500 years of theological proof. You cannot and in fact no one can prove the big bang theory, it has supporting evidence yes, it is accepted as the mainstream view yet you cannot prove it. Oh and does misspelling make me ignorant? I guess Ann Bancroft, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Michael Faraday, Wright Brothers, Sir Isaac Newton, Henry Ford. were all ignorant to having for dyslexia like me...

Nope, I accept that too. I just accept that they're either wrong or they're somehow right even though they have no logical reason to come to the conclusion they're at.

I wish you could accept others have different view points to you, but no, the minute someone posts about anything to do with creationism you immediately go on the attack and try to insult them calling them ignorant or arrogant, fumy really, that's exactly what a religious zealot does...

Yes, because nobody knows. A few scientists have some ideas, and they're actually bothering to do research into those ideas to see whether or not those ideas are right.

Kind of backs up my whole point doesn't it, no one yet has proof and therefore calling others ignorant because they don't believe your version of truth does in fact make you ignorant.

This is the biggest reason why you're being ignorant. There is no faith involved and you don't know what the word 'theory' means if you're going to put it IN CAPITAL LETTERS as if it's making a dramatic point. A theory in the scientific sense of the word (and that's definitely how we're talking about it) is a proven explanation. Circuit theory (your computer wouldn't be working without it being true), germ theory, cell theory, and the theory of evolution. All of them are theories because they are proven, not because they are unproven.

From the Oxford Dictionary (Is that wrong to?)
noun (plural theories)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
Darwin's theory of evolution
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:
a theory of education
[mass noun] :
music theory
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action:
my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged
Mathematicsa collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Not proven, theorised, speculated, assumed, but not proven

Now, on the faith issue...where's the faith in accepting an idea for which I can read the data sets and see the conclusions derived if I so choose? There's transparency in science. I can even read follow up papers and critiques of those papers by other scientists. It's an intentionally self-correcting process, no faith needed. Claiming certainty while demonstrating ignorance...

You believe the big bang theory yes? Yet the big bang theory is unproven, whilst there is data supporting the big bang theory there is no proof, it even contradicts Einstein theory of relativity (the singularity within a black hole) yet it is accepted as the standard model for the creation of the universe, yet your acceptance is based on "belief" they are right, not because it is scientifically proven.

Theories are proven. It is different than believing in a religion in that very sense.

No they are not

It's a religious belief that makes an explicit claim about the natural world that should be evidenced. It is not a purely metaphysical religious belief. Were the world created, especially by a divine being, there should be evidence of this.

And god said "Bang" and a universe and theory were formed, Ludicrous I know but as yet unproven, You cannot prove how the universe was created, you can theorise but not prove, they have the same problem.

I'm sorry, but it's not presumptive, it's a conclusion derived from five years of discussing things with creationists and having to repeatedly explain very simple scientific concepts...like what a theory is. In fact, you're ignorant of science too.

I am not ignorant of science, I just understand the difference between theology and science.

...yes I can. I can call them ignorant for believing in something for which there is no evidence. It's not up to me to disprove their deity to call them ignorant, it's up to them to prove their deity exists for me to stop doing so... And I don't tend to call theism in general ignorant. Creationism, that's just a completely different animal.

If someone experiences a an angelic visitation, you would call that delusion, perhaps the same for those who experience an OBE, they have experienced it, yet you call them ignorant because they have experienced something out of your understanding. Not everything can be measured in a lab, or explained with a computer model, to call others ignorant, to say they are stupid or uneducated, even when glaringly obvious they are not ,make you the truly ignorant one, science needs to be open, by definition it tries to explain the things around us, if we approach that with a closed mind, then we are no longer scientists. It is arrogant to think that we can explain everything within a infinite universe, that has existed at least 13 billion years, and for you to do so after reading a few scientific tombs only shows your arrogance


I have to go out and no more time to to finish, but I think my points are made

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
I am not ignorant of science, I just understand the difference between theology and science.

You seem to be determinedly misguided in believing that science is based upon proof. "Prove this, prove that". That's not how science works (unless you're a mathematician), science is based upon evidence.

The vast majority of science is based upon numerous people all agreeing that the evidence we see repeatedly indicates that a fact is true and that nobody has presented evidence that disputes that truth. Very little of science can be "proven".

This is why I challenged you to justify your claim that you can spot flaws in science. There are flaws in science yes, but spotting those flaws is exactly what scientists are paid to do, and they are very good at it. It is highly unlikely that you will spot a flaw in science that has not already been identified by a scientist and is the subject of a scientific paper. If you were to spot a substantial flaw in the theory of evolution you would probably be worthy of a Nobel prize.

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
The Bible is the only 'God book' to predict events well before their time with 100% accuracy. No other god has or ever will do that because they are not The True Eternal God who dwells outside of time. Christianity and the Bible are always trying to be silenced because of the truth contained within its pages.

You're so far gone, that in your opinion e.g. Luke 21:25 is prediction for the 2004 tsunami? If not, maybe you can elaborate on these predictions? Perhaps you can also explain why so many of them predictions didn't come true? Also, looking at your nick and the things you write, I'm quite sure that you're a troll..

reply to post by Crayfish



Actually no, my whole sequence of posts is not to prove that science is wrong, or that the methodology of science is wrong, I am actually quite analytical in my approach to things, I understand well that science is evidence based. My posts were to simply state that although one person believes something different that they are not ignorant,and by discussing their point of view does not make them arrogant It is the condescension and name calling, the constant trying to belittle others with alternative view points which goes against the whole purpose of a forum and gets my back up.

You present a logical case, your arguments are valid, yet you do not try to belittle me or others, you state your perspective on things which allows discussion, it is in fact a pleasure to discuss or even potentially argue certain points with you, having discussions/arguments with people such as yourself allows me to open my mind, to think in a different manner, I may well learn from such conversations, I may expand my mind, just as you may

My demands for proof were not because I expected anyone to provide any, they cannot, I was demanding proof because as soon as someone else mentions creationism madnessinmysould demanded proof, which is illogical because he cannot provide proof.

I accept the vast majority of scientific thought, and I know full well I am not qualified to disprove any theories. I believe in evolution, the evidence for it is overwhelming. I believe Einstein was a lot more intelligent than me, and I accept his theory of relativity even though there are anomalies in it, they are just parts that need further research to clarify why these anomalies exist. But knowing and understanding these things does not close my mind to other possibilities.

Science does make mistakes, 30 years ago we were being warned of a new ice age here in the UK, the science was wrong, 30 years ago accepted science stated there was hardly any chance of alien life existing else where in the universe, now accepted science states there was hardly any chance of alien life NOT existing else where in the universe. Currently there are well respected scientists arguing over climate change, some arguing for some against, both can present a compelling case yet only one side can be right, although conversely they could both be wrong.

There are so many unanswered questions in the universe, no one has full knowledge, and until we do I just think it is rude and counter productive to insult those that have different views. People complain on having to explain the same things over and over again, then hey stop going to those forums, stop making posts that antagonise people with different views. Stop looking for a fight (and this is not directed at you)

We don't know how to comprehend these things... that's why we created faith and science... science for things that we can comprehend and faith for those we can't.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
My demands for proof were not because I expected anyone to provide any, they cannot, I was demanding proof because as soon as someone else mentions creationism madnessinmysould demanded proof, which is illogical because he cannot provide proof.

You're correct and his debating strategy on this subject is crippled by his demand for proof as such a demand is impossible and leads to cyclic arguments, often descending into personal criticism and then to insults. If he had simply asked for evidence his position would be stronger.

As with many things in life, it turns out that our views on the matter of the fundamental nature of reality are closer than our disagreements might suggest. I argue quite strongly against creationism because it is a dangerous thing to accept "god did it" as an answer to our questions about the world. That sort of attitude leads to blind dogma and eventually (in my opinion) to suffering and injustice.

My own views put imagination as the fundamental substance of the universe with matter being a construct of belief. The rules we create in our collective consciousness are the rules that define our perceived reality. We all live in our own reality tunnels which often conflict with those lived in by other people. The scientific method simply creates the strongest, practically unbreakable, reality tunnel. When a (previously successful) clairvoyant goes to the James Randi Educational Foundation to collect their $1m prize for demonstrating a paranormal activity under controlled conditions, they enter into the reality tunnel of scientific belief and cannot conquer it.

That's going quite off topic but I hope demonstrates that although I am sometime quite aggressively opposed to the ideas of creationists, I am by no means an atheist either.

reply to post by Crayfish


Thanks for your reply, and reading it actually made me stop and think, in particular the paragraph

My own views put imagination as the fundamental substance of the universe with matter being a construct of belief. The rules we create in our collective consciousness are the rules that define our perceived reality. We all live in our own reality tunnels which often conflict with those lived in by other people. The scientific method simply creates the strongest, practically unbreakable, reality tunnel.

This is remarkably similar to my own beliefs and I haven't heard anyone mention this before. Not the same but close in concept and I know I could spend many a happy hour discussing some of the intricacies of this with you. My own beliefs are that god as it were is just an energy, a vibration that gives life to everything else, Not a planned life, just life that grows, develops and evolves, but that energy is mailable it can be transformed, and that religions create their own life cycle and death cycle by manipulating this energy subconsciously and as such many civilisations and cultures will be destroyed by the very thing they believe in.

I think one of the problems when discussing creationism is defining what a creationist is, in my mind that is like defining what a conspiracy theorist is and reading any forum here will adequately prove they do not all believe the same thing and often disagree whole heartedly often vehemently. I would deem myself a creationist to some extent, in that I believe that a energy, a life giving force, a god if you will gave the universe its existence. I could deem you the same with your belief that imagination creates our reality,

I think most people feel or believe that all creationists are biblical creationists, which is narrow mined considering the plethora of beliefs there are in the world. There are those that believe the biblical version of creation, and I would argue against it, challenge their belief because to me it is logically wrong, not because I feel I am right and know better. It might well be better for people to post biblical creationist, rather than just creationist. Even teh big bang theory is a form of creationism by extension

reply to post by Theophorus

OKAY....here is the answer...ITS GOD!!!

If nothing can exist that wasn't created, who or what created GOD?

Originally posted by DJW001
If nothing can exist that wasn't created, who or what created GOD?

Who says, this is true anyways? Haven't physics experiments already confirmed that in vacuum particles and antimatter particles arise from nothing, exist for the briefest moment, and then annihilate one another?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Who says, this is true anyways? Haven't physics experiments already confirmed that in vacuum particles and antimatter particles arise from nothing, exist for the briefest moment, and then annihilate one another?

If they can be said even to have existed at all!

A simple question for creationists..... Have you ever picked up a science book or graduated high school?

reply to post by rhinoceros


It is not my job to convince anyone of the truth contained within the Bible. Your unbelief does not change the truth. If the Bible is truth, and there is an enemy trying to lead you down the road to perdition, that enemy would try to hide the truth, wouldn't he? Why is it that evolution is so well funded even despite the fact that many laws of physics have to be broken, ignored or manipulated just to make it appear to make sense, yet creationism and the Bible are pushed aside and every attempt has been made to destroy it?

reply to post by PrinceDreamer

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
Please point out where I said the big bang theory has no supporting evidence? I said it was not proven a completely different thing than saying there was no evidence, and you accuse others of deflecting the issue...

I'm sorry, but you said the following:

The big bang theory is just that a theory, with no proof of fact, it is just accepted as the most logical reasoning by atheistic scientists.

You made the ignorant assumption about 'atheistic scientists' at the end for good measure. Now with no proof of fact (odd turn of phrase that it is) doesn't mean 'not proven', it means there isn't any proof...and you implied that it's only accepted because it's logical and that the only people accepting are 'atheistic scientists'...and I promptly pointed out that it's a lot more than atheists accepting it out in the scientific community.

And how have I demonstrated ignorance of science?

With the following statement that shows an ignorance of (at the very least) the philosophy of science:

even a scientific approach is still base on belief

It's based on reasonable belief derived from testing, which is not the same as irrational belief based on faith.

By asking you to prove what you claim?

No, technically you asked me this:

Where is your proof of where the universe came from? And don't quote me Hawkins or any other, I want YOUR proof, not something you have read and accepted, I want proof from you?

Grammatically incorrect as it is, it's far worse due to its logical mistakes. Science doesn't work by accepting something that I've read as if I just read a book containing proclamations. That statement was ignorant in it demanding that I somehow recreate

But yet it is ok for you to demand proof or religion and for someone to give you 6500 years of theological proof.

...well, I didn't preclude anyone from providing references, nor did I ask for supreme originality. I didn't ask people to give me everything, nor did I ask for anything theological (at least not in this forum).

And theology is at least 10,000 years old...probably older. There's no necessary conclusive proof on when theistic religions began, but it's probably in that ballpark.

You cannot and in fact no one can prove the big bang theory, it has supporting evidence yes, it is accepted as the mainstream view yet you cannot prove it.

...technically no, you cannot prove anything. But it has enough evidence for it to be incredibly unlikely that it is false as a general concept if not completely right on every single specific. There exists no other theory that explains any of the facts of the universe as observed by the Big Bang theory and it has made successful predictions about observations that were made later.

But this just goes to show that you're ignorant of the philosophy of science. Anyone who has had a basic lecture on the subject wouldn't care that you can't 100% absolutely prove anything because they would understand how meaningless it would be.

Oh and does misspelling make me ignorant?

It's not a misspelling, it's a downright conflation of two different scientists. I don't tend to blink when someone rights "Dawkin" or "Dakins" or some clear variation of the name that has enough components to get the basic meaning across, but when you make the clear mistake that all sorts of people make of confusing two people in two different fields who have admittedly similar names it means you're not really taking any time.

And what's wrong with the work of Dawkins anyway? He's a published and renowned biologist...

I guess Ann Bancroft, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Michael Faraday, Wright Brothers, Sir Isaac Newton, Henry Ford. were all ignorant to having for dyslexia like me...

No, you're ignorant for all sorts of other things. And frankly, yes, those people were all ignorant. For various reasons, but ignorance isn't a bad thing unless you don't admit to it. You're demonstrating all sorts of ignorance left and right, yet here you are trying to (ignorantly) make it seem like I'm calling you ignorant for having an issue that I was unaware of...hell, I can't even verify if you really are dyslexic.

I wish you could accept others have different view points to you,

I do, on all sorts of issues. I understand that some people enjoy the Twilight books, I understand why they see the appeal and I do not....but this is science, it's not something about viewpoints.

but no, the minute someone posts about anything to do with creationism you immediately go on the attack and try to insult them calling them ignorant

I'm not insulting them, I'm directly pointing out that they are being ignorant. I do not call someone ignorant unless they have displayed ignorance. If you display a lack of knowledge, you're ignorant on that subject. Are you generally ignorant? Probably not. Ignorance is something that can be corrected, it's not an insult.

or arrogant, fumy really, that's exactly what a religious zealot does...

I called someone arrogant because they accused me of 'not knowing'. I threw out courtesy, I don't tend to make it a habit.

Kind of backs up my whole point doesn't it, no one yet has proof and therefore calling others ignorant because they don't believe your version of truth does in fact make you ignorant.

I'm not calling people ignorant because they disagree with me, I'm calling them ignorant because they display ignorance. Michael Behe is ignorant not because he is a creationist, it's because of his well documented process of getting to that conclusion. You are ignorant because you have not displayed much in the realm of scientific literacy. Nothing wrong with being ignorant though. I am ignorant about things, just not this thing. I don't know much about metallurgy beyond what it is, but I could correct that if I wanted.

From the Oxford Dictionary (Is that wrong to?)
noun (plural theories)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:]
Darwin's theory of evolution
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:
a theory of education
[mass noun] :
music theory
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action:
my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged
Mathematicsa collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Not proven, theorised, speculated, assumed, but not proven

(bold emphasis added)
Wow, so you just discard the first definition (which actually has an example of a scientific theory) and went on to the last bits...a theory isn't something that is a speculation or an assumption, it's something that is implemented. A theory is something that can be used. Evolutionary theory is used in genetics. The theories of relativity are used in calibrating GPS satellites. The big bang theory is used in predictive cosmological models.

And dictionaries refer to common usage. The Oxford English dictionary? It refers to common usage. The common usage of the word 'theory'? It's not the scientific usage. Have you tried checking how the word 'theory' is used in the jargon of scientific literature?

You believe the big bang theory yes? Yet the big bang theory is unproven, whilst there is data supporting the big bang theory there is no proof, it even contradicts Einstein theory of relativity (the singularity within a black hole)

What? How does the big bang theory contradict general or special relativity? No theory is ever proven in science. Germ theory? Not proven. The idea that microorganisms are a cause of disease is not proven...yet that didn't stop the antibiotics I took when I had a bacterial infection from curing it.

Again, you're displaying an ignorance of the philosophy of science by expecting a scientific theory to be proven. Circuit theory isn't 'proven', even though we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't true.

yet it is accepted as the standard model for the creation of the universe, yet your acceptance is based on "belief" they are right, not because it is scientifically proven.

...because nothing is 'proven' in science. There are degrees of certainty, the big bang is up there at the 'quite certain' degree.

Theories are proven. It is different than believing in a religion in that very sense.

No they are not

You're right, I was trying to talk to a lay person by using the word 'proven', yet you seem to be harping on the word. They're as close to proven as anything in the natural world can get. There is no way to objectively prove anything with unequivocal, epistemologically sound certainty, so what? We can use the theories of science, that's close enough to proof for me.

And god said "Bang" and a universe and theory were formed, Ludicrous I know but as yet unproven, You cannot prove how the universe was created, you can theorise but not prove, they have the same problem.

No, they don't have the same problem. Science has the problem of not being certain, religion has the problem of not bothering with evidence or reason. Coming up with an untestable claim isn't the same as coming up with a testable claim and being unable to provide epistemological certainty about whether or not the conclusions of the repeated test were correct even though results for those tests have been applied billions of times over around the world.

Circuit theory? Not proven...our electrical grids and computers don't seem to mind.

I am not ignorant of science, I just understand the difference between theology and science.

Science is useful and theology is pointless drivel. I understand that difference too.

If someone experiences a an angelic visitation, you would call that delusion, perhaps the same for those who experience an OBE, they have experienced it, yet you call them ignorant because they have experienced something out of your understanding.

Special pleading. And "OBE"s have been recreated in the lab. Experience is no way to derive knowledge about the world around you. That's why science deals in controls.

Not everything can be measured in a lab, or explained with a computer model,

I'll bite. Name something that science cannot touch yet is not a matter of personal preference or pure abstraction.

to call others ignorant, to say they are stupid or uneducated,

Calling someone ignorant is not the same as calling someone stupid...and education doesn't equate to a lack of ignorance either. I'm saying that someone is not knowledgeable on a single subject, not that they are stupid or generally ignorant. I'm sure you know quite a few things I don't know.

even when glaringly obvious they are not ,make you the truly ignorant one,

Except it's glaringly obvious that anyone who is a creationist is either ignorant or dishonest.

science needs to be open, by definition it tries to explain the things around us, if we approach that with a closed mind, then we are no longer scientists.

It is arrogant to think that we can explain everything within a infinite universe, that has existed at least 13 billion years,

This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about! If something is infinite then it cannot be described via the language of time...yet you just called something infinite and then gave it an age. You are clearly demonstrating an ignorance of the concept of 'infinite', but that's okay because it's a damn difficult concept to get around.

And guess what...I'm the first person to say that nobody knows everything, but that doesn't mean that all opinions of what is unknown are equivalent in any way. There's a difference between educated guesses, random stabs in the dark, guesses based on tradition, guesses based on what someone wishes were so, etc. Not all guesses are created equally, the scientifically minded ones are created of a completely greater material as they tend to be the ones that are right.

Though I do think that knowing everything is within the realm of possibility. Not necessarily knowing everything at the same time, but it would be stupid to care about the knowledge of the position of dust particles on Mars over fundamental forces in the universe. I doubt that there is anything about the realm around us that is outside of the realm of science to answer. I have yet to encounter something that cannot be answered by science, merely things that have yet to be answered by science but can only be approached scientifically.

and for you to do so after reading a few scientific tombs only shows your arrogance

Except that I don't, I just claim to understand what I've read about science (which is more than a few books), and I don't claim to know everything about science. I know nothing of engineering, incredibly little of calculus, little of chemistry, etc. But I'm quite well versed in biology and issues of origins, primarily due to having to answer ridiculous questions from creationists over the years.

I have to go out and no more time to to finish, but I think my points are made

Yes, you refuse to admit your ignorance and you're trying to call me ignorant.

reply to post by Theophorus

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

. I don't 'happen' to accept evolution or any other scientific principle, it's there, it's supported by evidence.

Bible is also there and is supported by 2000 years of undisputed evidence. That is to say,sound moral theological evidence.

Stoning, slavery, mass rape, child sacrifice (nope, not the Isaac story, read your Bible), genocide, infant genital mutilation, sexism, vilification of the female reproductive cycle, infinite punishment for finite rewards, homophobia, etc etc...nope, nothing morally powerful there.

Sure, there are a few gems tucked away in the Bible, and it has some interesting divergences from the cultural context of the region it arose in, but it's far from being undisputed.

Problem is ,is that you are unable to distinguish between physical truth (science), and spiritual truth.Considering man consists of both, you are only receiving half the picture.

Except that there is no evidence of that second 'half' you are claiming I consist of. All sorts of evidence of my physical nature. And why the hell wouldn't the all powerful, all knowing architect of the universe bother to at least not get the science horribly wrong in its own book?

reply to post by infojunkie2


False dilemma. There's a third option, the preexisting material may have always existed. Fourth option, it may come into existence as a consequence of physics. So, again, straw man.