Is God real post your thoughts!

[Saru Inc]

 

 

 

 

And no, the section of science you choose to believe in, while ignoring everything else, attempts to disprove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not even a coherient sentence. Evolution and the big bang theory totally contradict what is written about creation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I showed you the proof about the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What did that "proof" explain, exactly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe philosophers from Ancient Greece, why wouldn't you believe a book that is, if not spiritually correct, at least factually correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you pick and choose what you percieve as factually correct. It establishes nothing factual about god, nor does it provide any evidence that isn't faith based.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order, there's a certain order in things, I can't explain much more, because I don't know much about it, but I've heard some really great things about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Hearing great things about it" gives you no room to discuss it's validity. I suggest you research this topic, and you'll come to find out that order in nature only exists without human intervention, and even then it is pretty scarcely found. We tend to ruin that which is natural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything falling into place - oh say, tilt of the earth, exact symmetry in the Human body (except, certain organs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no more symmetry in the human body than there is in the body of a monkey. Also, if god created the Sun and the Earth, why would he need to tilt the Earth if he simply could have made it so the Earth required no tilt? Nothing fell into place. We adapted to what we were given.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to Assassin, what I mean is, he says religion is a theory, I say evolution is a theory. And we both think to the point of death we're correct. So is it not realtive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it is not relative, because one theory is based upon highly observed concepts beyond most human comprehension, whereas the other has no more merit than the idea of Santa Claus in the realm of testing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a coherent sentence, actually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I showed you the proof, and you didn't want to see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I'll just assume you know nothing about Ancient History, such as civilizations, because if you did, you'd realized that the Bible is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, actually, you pull a lot of stuff out that you have not studied, exactly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He has reasons for everything, just because you can't comprehend something, does that mean it can't exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how does the Earth adapt to it's tilt? Do you really think the Earth cares about it's tilt?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, what I am trying to get at, is that everyone who believes in Science, or should I say Evolution\Big Bang, says it's been physically proven. But everyone who believes in Creationism and God also say it's been physically proven. Do you see what I'm getting get?

[venomai]

And, what I am trying to get at, is that everyone who believes in Science, or should I say Evolution\Big Bang, says it's been physically proven. But everyone who believes in Creationism and God also say it's been physically proven. Do you see what I'm getting get?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empirical evidence backing scientific theories (e.g. the Big Bang, evolution, etc) is abundant and has shown to exist. The empirical evidence backing Creationism and God has not shown to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "world around us" is no more physical proof of the Judeo-Christian God than it is proof of any other deity, or, for lack of a better example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Sly_Wizard]

The "world around us" is no more physical proof of the Judeo-Christian God than it is proof of any other deity, or, for lack of a better example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...And, as I'm sure you well realize, the opposite means nothing as well. So what, exactly, is the point?

[Cup Lion]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is really old. Could you at least choose something that sounds cooler? :D

[D Jay99]

And I showed you the proof, and you didn't want to see it.

 

 

 

Would you just repost what you said, instead of telling us in each post to go look for it because you 'have already shown us the proof'.

[doomy]

And, what I am trying to get at, is that everyone who believes in Science, or should I say Evolution\Big Bang, says it's been physically proven. But everyone who believes in Creationism and God also say it's been physically proven. Do you see what I'm getting get?

 

 

 

The evolution/big bang theory hasn't only been said to be physically true, it's been tested scientifically over and over....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this arguement I suppose is the fact that you can't actually disprove the idea of a god.. But you can pretty much disprove the statements in the bible which god supposedly did, which is why the idea of the god seems unlikely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But honestly in the end it really isn't of huge importance, people can believe what they want, was can sit here forever and you won't believe anything we say because it contradicts the bible, but the whole reason it was said was to contradict the bible.

[Saru Inc]

I should just move on...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One last time: I'm not trying to disproive Evolution or Creationism, I was just saying how one side thinks the other side is wrong and ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, this is un related but I found this site that proves Christianity, read the one about Biogenesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then the sun standing still *sigh* I'll repost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.endtimespost.org/new_page_24.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I know that the site looks like crazy religous fanatics, it does to me too. XD But just go behind their pics.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

I showed you the proof about the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, the sun standing still as written in the bible is a myth. [1] Even Creationists know that NASA somehow finding a missing day is nonsense [2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, like others have said and lamented over ad nauseum, the word theory has a different meaning in science than in every day use. A scientific theory isn't just one person's random idea. Rather, it's a testable, logical framework which explains some aspect of nature, incorporating evidence and making falsifiable predictions to support itself. A theory is the pinnacle of science, not the bottom. It's primary reason for existing isn't as a temporary solution to some yet unanswered problem: it's to tie concepts together to help us understand something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gravity is part of the general theory of relativity, yet we know that gravity exists. The idea that bacteria cause disease is part of the germ theory of disease, yet we know that bacteria cause disease. Atoms are part of atomic theory, yet we know that atoms exist. These examples should at least cause you to scratch your head and ask what the hell is going on here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the same vein, evolution (descent with modification over time) is part of the theory of evolution, but we know that it happened. [2] [3]

[venomai]

 

The "world around us" is no more physical proof of the Judeo-Christian God than it is proof of any other deity, or, for lack of a better example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...And, as I'm sure you well realize, the opposite means nothing as well. So what, exactly, is the point?

 

 

 

What is "the opposite"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you mean non-existence? I'm arguing directly against Saruman's claim that there is physical proof to support the existence of the Judeo-Christian God (of which, I presume, "the world around us" is his physical proof).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is really old. Could you at least choose something that sounds cooler?

 

 

 

I'll admit, it's become a cliché.

[Lenticular_J]

I think that's what he meant. The lack of physical evidence doesn't not prove and it doesn't prove. It's quite unbiased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like flying pink elephants. At least that makes them sound like animal cookies.

[NoMoreDead]

 

 

 

And I showed you the proof, and you didn't want to see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. Your proof was not factual and prooved nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I'll just assume you know nothing about Ancient History, such as civilizations, because if you did, you'd realized that the Bible is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. Having knowledge of ancient civilizations actually enhanced my belief that the bible was in fact nonsense. You assume that which is not true, and by doing so you make yourself look moronic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, something 2000 years old is hardly considered "Ancient", unless of course you believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, actually, you pull a lot of stuff out that you have not studied, exactly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, I'm not sure what you're going for, but there are so many gramatical errors in that sentence that I cannot even begin to comprehend what you tried to type. Try again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He has reasons for everything, just because you can't comprehend something, does that mean it can't exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. However, as I've already said, there is no reason to do something like tilt the Earth if you are able to change it so that it is not necessary. You present a weak argument which consists of: If you can't comprehend it, then god must've done it! If it's beyond our though processes, it must be the work of god!" Unfortunatly, we know why the Earth has tilt, and therefore god is out of the equation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how does the Earth adapt to it's tilt? Do you really think the Earth cares about it's tilt?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said "We", as in everything that populated Earth. Try reading the sentence before you make a comment about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, what I am trying to get at, is that everyone who believes in Science, or should I say Evolution\Big Bang, says it's been physically proven. But everyone who believes in Creationism and God also say it's been physically proven. Do you see what I'm getting get?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTHING has been physically prooven to contradict the notions of evolution/big bang and supports the idea of creation.

[venomai]

I think that's what he meant. The lack of physical evidence doesn't not prove and it doesn't prove. It's quite unbiased.

 

 

 

Then you'll agree with my earlier post: physical proof (e.g. "God's creations and all that surrounds us") does not support the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, or any other deity for that matter. That is the point I'm making in my rebuttal to Saruman's claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what exactly is unbiased? Surely not the physical evidence? :lol:

[Saru Inc]

Good grief, you guys blew this way out of proportions. I was just making a point. And second, NoMoreDead, if you really did study Ancient History, then you'd know that EVERY single civilization in the Bible has been discovered through digs and such. Also, this is completely off-topic but not: My Bio teacher is actually my study block teacher also, and I asked her about Abiogenesis and such and she said, that with Abiogenesis, and evolution, there is proof to prove it. but She also said she found proof to disprove it, I'm not quite sure what she meant, though. But she said with 'Ready's Fly' experiments, that people did not observe the whole time, or something, how they said that Fly came from meat, but did not see that the flies had laid eggs which gave to maggots which gave to flies. Also, she said with Aristotle, that when he said he saw hay, then left and saw mice, he came to the conclusion the the mice came from the hay. Which she says that there was mice all along, but he left, and didn't see the whole conclusion. I'm really not trying to make a debate out of that, just putting it out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, nothing you say makes any sense, and doyou really need to debate my grammatical errors?

[Lenticular_J]

Then you'll agree with my earlier post: physical proof (e.g. "God's creations and all that surrounds us") does not support the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, or any other deity for that matter. That is the point I'm making in my rebuttal to Saruman's claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what exactly is unbiased? Surely not the physical evidence? :lol:

 

 

 

Exactly. It can't prove and it can't not prove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, the physical evidence is unbiased. It's rocks. All they do...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is sit there.

[Rebdragon]

Good grief, you guys blew this way out of proportions. I was just making a point. And second, NoMoreDead, if you really did study Ancient History, then you'd know that EVERY single civilization in the Bible has been discovered through digs and such.

 

 

 

And what exactly is the point you're making? That because there are facts in the Bible, it's all true? So, if I wrote a book set in the era of the ancient Greeks and everything in it that had to do with Greek politics and battles and was verifiable turned out to be at least vaguely true, anything else I added in (verifiable or otherwise) would undoubtadly be fact as well?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, this is completely off-topic but not: My Bio teacher is actually my study block teacher also, and I asked her about Abiogenesis and such and she said, that with Abiogenesis, and evolution, there is proof to prove it. but She also said she found proof to disprove it, I'm not quite sure what she meant, though. But she said with 'Ready's Fly' experiments, that people did not observe the whole time, or something, how they said that Fly came from meat, but did not see that the flies had laid eggs which gave to maggots which gave to flies. Also, she said with Aristotle, that when he said he saw hay, then left and saw mice, he came to the conclusion the the mice came from the hay. Which she says that there was mice all along, but he left, and didn't see the whole conclusion. I'm really not trying to make a debate out of that, just putting it out there.

 

 

 

Let me get this straight. Using a few scientific errors in history, you're trying to disprove science?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ. My eyes are bleeding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, nothing you say makes any sense, and doyou really need to debate my grammatical errors?

 

 

 

Irony. Read my above line again.

[venomai]

Yeah, the physical evidence is unbiased. It's rocks. All they do...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is sit there.

 

 

 

Ah, sorry. I somehow misinterpreted the word "unbiased" to mean "biased." :lol:

[Saru Inc]

No Reb, actually. What I meant was I was trying to make a point, NOT that Creationism or Evolution is a fact, which none of you understand, but thaqt both sides of the argument would believe there side to the death. I added the Bible part because he said NOTHING was factually correct, and I corrected him on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I just said I wasn't trying to debate, I just thought it was interesting about what she said, I expect you wrote "tl;dr" but then deleted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what I meant, was how NoMoreDead says I have all these 'holes' in arguments, but he doesn't point them out. If I have holes in them, point em out to me. But, just incase you missed it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=proof.]They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries, and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong with either the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They called on the service department to check it out, and they said, Whats wrong? Well, they found there is a day missing in space in elapsed time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They couldnt figure it out at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally a Christian man on the team said, You know, one time I was in Sunday School, and they talked about the sun standing still. While they didnt believe him, they didnt have an answer either, so they said, Show us,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He got a Bible and went to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There they found the Lord saying to Joshua,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jos 10:12 Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy! And if darkness fell, they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! The sun stood still and the moon stayed and lasted not to go down about a whole day!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The astronauts and scientists said, There is the missing day! They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshuas day was 23 hours and 20 minutesnot a whole day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They read the Bible. Isaiah spoke to the Lord, and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees BACKWARD! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say wha? Atheists not having all the answers? o.o! And thus, the Atheists were conviced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I could care less if you're Atheist, many of my friends are, but you guys DEBASE everyone who doesn't believe what you believe. Why? If someone is in folly, let them be in folly. I'm just trying to pass the time, actually but then I got really involved, and you know what? My opinion is my opinion, go spend about five minutes outside, especially you, RebDragon.

[Rebdragon]

Where the [bleep] does a missing day come into calculations when we're estimating the history of the universe with an upper and lower bound variation of over 100 million years...? I mean, for crying out loud, that story is so [developmentally delayed]ed it makes the Creationist "scientist" who thought the earth would blow up from all the expected helium on it look like a genius.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On your first point, just because a lot of people want to be ignorant together and believe what they do does not mean that they're stance is correct, especially if they aren't even going to follow the [bleep]ing scientific method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

["I expect you wrote tl;dr then deleted it"? Huh?]

[Saru Inc]

You're still missing the first point, so I concede defeat to save my sanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also - tl;dr = too long; didn't read. Because if you did, the fact is, a supposed 'myth' that the sun stood still, was proven to be correct. But now you're dismissing this as false because it's a minute detail? A minute error, could destroy a huge building, if you know what I mean.

[venomai]

the fact is, a supposed 'myth' that the sun stood still, was proven to be correct.

 

 

 

Proven correct by whom? You haven't given us any names or institutions, let alone a link to the original text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you described is most certainly a myth.

 

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

[Saru Inc]

No, if you read that site (and it's one site out of 30 or so that it says is incorrect) it still acknowledges the Bible was true, but it was 'wrong' in this occasision. And, also a 'tl;dr' moment, because I JUST provided it like 10 posts ago,for the third time!

[Lateralus]

EDIT: Beaten to the Snopes article.

[Saru Inc]

So what you're saying is, if one thing says it's not true, then it means all others are wrong? Use it for Evolution then: If one fundamentlistic Islamic site says Evolution is wrong, and thousands say it's right. Does it mean it's wrong because of one site?

[frogact]

Yes, God is real. Faith is the belief in something unseen and is a gift from God Himself. There is nothing I could ever say that would convince you or anyone else that God is real. You believe what you chose to believe. the end

[Lenticular_J]

Yes, God is real. Faith is the belief in something unseen and is a gift from God Himself. There is nothing I could ever say that would convince you or anyone else that God is real. You believe what you chose to believe. the end

 

 

 

:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't trust Snopes. Many of the things that circulate around the internet are made by them, so they get more clicks that wonder whether or not they're true.