# Evidence for God?



## ScienceRocks

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not. 

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?


----------



## Ringel05

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?


Tissue?


----------



## flacaltenn

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?



That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.  

The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..


----------



## flacaltenn

Ringel05 said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue?
Click to expand...


All tissues in the universe originated in the Big Bang. There were none before that.


----------



## BULLDOG

flacaltenn said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
Click to expand...


Where did God come from?


----------



## flacaltenn

BULLDOG said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?
Click to expand...


Beats me. For me it's realizing that even with ALL the science that I know -- that there's a need of HUMILITY in claiming that Science is absolutely free of "belief"..  And people of faith are very humble. Subjecting yourself to the "discipline and traditions" of religion TEACHES you humility.

As opposed say to those who place their lives and futures in the decisions of mere men/women. And HAVE no humility about what they can demand by power of law.

Humility and obedience to a "higher law" is a good thing.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dont' see how the 2 are exclusive. There's continual moments of awe as you understand more of nature and science the order of things. And at some point -- "faith" is required in accepting a LOT of the scientific evidence.

PROBABLY because of knowledge gaps yet to be filled. But that's where the Humility part comes in handy.

*The arrogance of attempting to bash people of faith with an incomplete and ever evolving "science" view of the world is repugnant and disgusting to me.* And it's usually folks who have never reached those "moments of awe" in science that REQUIRE YOU to invoke some form of humble "belief"...


----------



## skye

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?




You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?

Well you won't.


----------



## ScienceRocks

flacaltenn said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
Click to expand...


Big bang = energy
God = intelligence and complex being. 

This isn't a simple question either way.


----------



## BULLDOG

flacaltenn said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beats me. For me it's realizing that even with ALL the science that I know -- that there's a need of HUMILITY in claiming that Science is absolutely free of "belief"..  And people of faith are very humble. Subjecting yourself to the "discipline and traditions" of religion TEACHES you humility.
> 
> As opposed say to those who place their lives and futures in the decisions of mere men/women. And HAVE no humility about what they can demand by power of law.
> 
> Humility and obedience to a "higher law" is a good thing.
Click to expand...


Religion, in the proper context can teach lots of worthwhile things, but I don't see that as the subject. If you are against evolution because the concept that natural selection could produce humans is too much for you to conceive, How much harder would it be for a God to be created? You can't prove where God came from. Using your logic, there is no reason to believe he even exists.


----------



## flacaltenn

skye said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
Click to expand...


You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".  
Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.


----------



## skye

flacaltenn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
Click to expand...




Well yes,  at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.

That day  we will have no doubts!


----------



## flacaltenn

BULLDOG said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beats me. For me it's realizing that even with ALL the science that I know -- that there's a need of HUMILITY in claiming that Science is absolutely free of "belief"..  And people of faith are very humble. Subjecting yourself to the "discipline and traditions" of religion TEACHES you humility.
> 
> As opposed say to those who place their lives and futures in the decisions of mere men/women. And HAVE no humility about what they can demand by power of law.
> 
> Humility and obedience to a "higher law" is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion, in the proper context can teach lots of worthwhile things, but I don't see that as the subject. If you are against evolution because the concept that natural selection could produce humans is too much for you to conceive, How much harder would it be for a God to be created? You can't prove where God came from. Using your logic, there is no reason to believe he even exists.
Click to expand...


In evolution for instance, it's certainly NOT an either/or proposition. Darwin failed to ascribe the ACTUAL causes of mutation that we know now.  And the complex structure of DNA and all the secondary ways that genes are activated or mutated was not available to him. Being the FITTEST was the EFFECT, not the CAUSE of evolution. 

Now that we know a shitload more -- it's obvious that things people fought over in the "gaps" in evolution, might NEVER HAVE EXISTED. 

For instance, we now know that ACCELERATED evolution is entirely possible. This was shown in the early 20th century by CREATING 10 new species of fruit flies in a day or two. 

SO -- the forces of rapid mutation could be sudden Enviro stress, Chemical exposure, or more than likely Cosmic Ray bombardment.

Now tell me -- what does State Farm or Allstate classify a massive Cosmic Ray storm as ?  *It's an "act of Gawd" --- right?* Times in evolution where the mutation rates SKYROCKETED and "skipped" the expected "missing links"... 

All this Darwin missed out on. Doesn't mean he wasn't an originator of the concept. But the normal debate pitting Gawd against Darwin is just for chumps. 

It just was not this neat simple progression that most people have in their heads.


----------



## flacaltenn

ScienceRocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big bang = energy
> God = intelligence and complex being.
> 
> This isn't a simple question either way.
Click to expand...


Big Bang = energy + matter + dark matter + stuff we don't even know. 
God = the "order of things" -- not necessarily a "being".  

I'm not religious, but spiritual and very supportive of people of faith. I see it as a STRENGTH, not a weakness. And "the order of things" includes a prescription for morals and behavior that promotes a full life. That's what most people think about as "religion".  The moral codes and examples in the Bible. 

In addition the "Orderer" "programmed" life as we know it thru biochemistry coding and delicate physical/material balances that keep the Universe solid, real and virtually boundless.


----------



## BULLDOG

flacaltenn said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
Click to expand...


Yep. The big bang could be nothing but bullshit, but for now, it's the best guess we can come up with. Where did you say God came from? Are you sure of that, or is it just a guess?


----------



## flacaltenn

BULLDOG said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The big bang could be nothing but bullshit, but for now, it's the best guess we can come up with. Where did you say God came from? Are you sure of that, or is it just a guess?
Click to expand...


Star Trek -- The "Voyager" movie. An evolution of rules and order of things that creates worlds and reality. 

Starts with a tiny space probe that evolves through an evolution as real as the one that created us, and becomes "an orderer and creator of all things". 

He just has a Jillion head start on us..


----------



## BULLDOG

flacaltenn said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The big bang could be nothing but bullshit, but for now, it's the best guess we can come up with. Where did you say God came from? Are you sure of that, or is it just a guess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Star Trek -- The "Voyager" movie. An evolution of rules and order of things that creates worlds and reality.
> 
> Starts with a tiny space probe that evolves through an evolution as real as the one that created us, and becomes "an orderer and creator of all things".
> 
> He just has a Jillion head start on us..
Click to expand...


Silly, but good analogy. How many more eons would that probe be running around the universe working on creating a God after successfully creating the much less complex man?


----------



## flacaltenn

BULLDOG said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The big bang could be nothing but bullshit, but for now, it's the best guess we can come up with. Where did you say God came from? Are you sure of that, or is it just a guess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Star Trek -- The "Voyager" movie. An evolution of rules and order of things that creates worlds and reality.
> 
> Starts with a tiny space probe that evolves through an evolution as real as the one that created us, and becomes "an orderer and creator of all things".
> 
> He just has a Jillion head start on us..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly, but good analogy. How many more eons would that probe be running around the universe working on creating a God after successfully creating the much less complex man?
Click to expand...


Ahhh... You want complexity huh?     How much more capable and complex has MAN gotten in the mere 200,000 past years or so.. Our ability to CREATE complexity is rapidly expanding. Soon to point where we might make machines that make US irrelevant.

That's just 1000 yrs or so of ANY real progress. So if we and our creations survive for a measly million years, where do you think "complexity" will be?

So the Star Trek V'ger story isn't too far off from describing a DIFFERENT kind of self-evolving machine that COULD end up creating, destroying, inventing and dictating terms of how things work on a gawd-like scale. Just need enough time.  And maybe a few alien interventions on the travel route of this "being"..


----------



## flacaltenn

Minor amount of alcohol involved in that, but it's sound answer to where "the orderer of all things" COULD come from..


----------



## BULLDOG

flacaltenn said:


> Minor amount of alcohol involved in that, but it's sound answer to where "the orderer of all things" COULD come from..



Only a minor amount? I don't have a problem with your theory. I'm far from thinking it is correct, but I'm not prepared to tell you it's not worth you researching, if that's what you or others might want to do. However, that's far from saying we don't have all the answers, so therefore God.


----------



## abu afak

flacaltenn said:


> *That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH EASIER to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang.* To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..


Textbook!






​
*And I might add.. Which/Witch god is easier to believe in?
You don't get them all: tens of thousands with different creation MYTHS.
Maybe you're lucky and it's your god! Yeah, that's the ticket!*
`


----------



## ScienceRocks

Looking at human evolution and the evolution of advanced life tells me that "God" popping out of nothing would be harder then energy popping out of lets say the multiverse into ours.


----------



## SixFoot




----------



## Old Rocks

SixFoot said:


>


Real smart. Except on the 40th experiment, the scientist figures out the problem. 

Six, how can you post this anti-science crap on a computer, hooked to the internet, and then to this message board, and say that science doesn't work? You assholes are so damned blind.


----------



## SixFoot

Old Rocks said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real smart. Except on the 40th experiment, the scientist figures out the problem.
> 
> Six, how can you post this anti-science crap on a computer, hooked to the internet, and then to this message board, and say that science doesn't work? You assholes are so damned blind.
Click to expand...


I smoke pot and make myself laugh sometimes.


----------



## K9Buck

ScienceRocks said:


> Looking at human evolution and the evolution of advanced life tells me that "God" popping out of nothing would be harder then energy popping out of lets say the multiverse into ours.



There is zero evidence for a multiverse.


----------



## K9Buck

These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.


----------



## K9Buck

ScienceRocks said:


> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible...



The bible isn't evidence.  

To say there is no evidence is not necessarily correct.  There's certainly a very good argument for the concept that our universe was designed and created by a super intellect.  If there is no creator, aka "God", then we're left to believe that everything came from nothing and that life spontaneously materialized from the alleged primordial soup which, by the way, science has NEVER been able to duplicate in spite of their best and never-ending efforts.  

There are also countless people who have had the so-called "near-death experiences" who have come back to discuss meeting the creator, loved ones who had passed previously, Jesus, etc.".  Some of them have claimed Hellish near-death experiences.  That's not something science can measure.  If there is a spiritual realm, science will NEVER be able to study it.  Guys like you dismiss these claims, of course,  The absolute LAST thing you want to exist is a creator.  So, you'll never acknowledge the experiences of others.  If it didn't happen to you then it didn't happen, right?  

Additionally, what you're saying is that, if you can't measure it, it can't exist.  That's an illogical fallacy.  

Ultimately, belief in a creator or belief that everything came from nothing relies on faith.  You either have faith in a creator or faith that everything came from nothing which, by the way, has ZERO evidence to back up that insane "theory".


----------



## Chuz Life

skye said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't affect them, even if they did find "God" in a Petri dish. . .

They would still simply abort him / her.

Look at how little effect the biological facts about a human life in the womb has on them!


----------



## K9Buck

I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed.  There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.


----------



## K9Buck

What the reader won't read is an atheist positing a theory on how the universe and how life came to be.  That would require integrity and few of them have that quality.


----------



## Whocares386

There is no logical evidence for the creators-gods. Also we don't need any god or something like that because Abiogenesis explains us to how life came to be.


----------



## K9Buck

Whocares386 said:


> There is no logical evidence for the creators-gods.



Besides the accepted theory for the beginning of the universe along with space and time and even life itself.  Yea, there's no evidence at all.


----------



## mhansen2

For some time now, I've believed Man created God in his image so the priests (or their equivalent) could keep the masses in line.


----------



## SixFoot

K9Buck said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at human evolution and the evolution of advanced life tells me that "God" popping out of nothing would be harder then energy popping out of lets say the multiverse into ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence for a multiverse.
Click to expand...


Depends on which concept people are applying to said multiverse:

_“What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions,” says Faizal. “As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC.”_

Large Hadron Collider Could Detect Extra Dimensions


----------



## K9Buck

mhansen2 said:


> For some time now, I've believed Man created God in his image so the priests (or their equivalent) could keep the masses in line.



Then you also likely believe that the universe created itself.  That's "scientific", right?


----------



## mhansen2

Did I say that?  There is, as yet, no verifiable evidence what caused the universe.  Some theories with various supporting data, but no proof what happened.  Maybe someday.

I'm giving my opinions or beliefs.  They are as valid as any other here.


----------



## MarkDuffy

flacaltenn said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
Click to expand...

OK, you have the floor. Explain how the big bang (which I am not a huge believer in even though my first major was astrophysics before I became an evolutionary biologist) is complex, whereas the God Hypothesis is simple.

1) Big bang ~ We have energy + hydrogen out of nothing (simple version)

2) God hypothesis ~ God from nothing


----------



## MarkDuffy

flacaltenn said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beats me. For me it's realizing that even with ALL the science that I know -- that there's a need of HUMILITY in claiming that Science is absolutely free of "belief"..  And people of faith are very humble. Subjecting yourself to the "discipline and traditions" of religion TEACHES you humility.
> 
> As opposed say to those who place their lives and futures in the decisions of mere men/women. And HAVE no humility about what they can demand by power of law.
> 
> Humility and obedience to a "higher law" is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Better, but not there yet.

You could consider science a religion, cuz it is also based on faith. Those faiths include assumptions that natural laws exist, are the same everywhere, constant over time & understandable/"discovered" by man (more or less). We also assume Occam's razor as starting points. 

I know of few if any believers who are humble about their religion & the real question is does the God deserve to be in charge of "higher law". Religions are usually taught by those who claim to know what God is and means. 

I'm pretty sure that if God/Jesus comes back, his first words (assuming he is not immediately crucified AGAIN by believers) will be ~ "Wait! I said WHAT?"


----------



## MarkDuffy

flacaltenn said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beats me. For me it's realizing that even with ALL the science that I know -- that there's a need of HUMILITY in claiming that Science is absolutely free of "belief"..  And people of faith are very humble. Subjecting yourself to the "discipline and traditions" of religion TEACHES you humility.
> 
> As opposed say to those who place their lives and futures in the decisions of mere men/women. And HAVE no humility about what they can demand by power of law.
> 
> Humility and obedience to a "higher law" is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion, in the proper context can teach lots of worthwhile things, but I don't see that as the subject. If you are against evolution because the concept that natural selection could produce humans is too much for you to conceive, How much harder would it be for a God to be created? You can't prove where God came from. Using your logic, there is no reason to believe he even exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In evolution for instance, it's certainly NOT an either/or proposition. Darwin failed to ascribe the ACTUAL causes of mutation that we know now.  And the complex structure of DNA and all the secondary ways that genes are activated or mutated was not available to him. Being the FITTEST was the EFFECT, not the CAUSE of evolution.
> 
> Now that we know a shitload more -- it's obvious that things people fought over in the "gaps" in evolution, might NEVER HAVE EXISTED.
> 
> For instance, we now know that ACCELERATED evolution is entirely possible. This was shown in the early 20th century by CREATING 10 new species of fruit flies in a day or two.
> 
> SO -- the forces of rapid mutation could be sudden Enviro stress, Chemical exposure, or more than likely Cosmic Ray bombardment.
> 
> Now tell me -- what does State Farm or Allstate classify a massive Cosmic Ray storm as ?  *It's an "act of Gawd" --- right?* Times in evolution where the mutation rates SKYROCKETED and "skipped" the expected "missing links"...
> 
> All this Darwin missed out on. Doesn't mean he wasn't an originator of the concept. But the normal debate pitting Gawd against Darwin is just for chumps.
> 
> It just was not this neat simple progression that most people have in their heads.
Click to expand...

Not gonna rip your post apart, but I will add that Chuck is our daddy and made a great start. He was wrong in several areas, but his guesses were sound for the time.


----------



## mhansen2

This is a never ending argument, so why bother?


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed.  There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.


The first life did not leave fossils. That requires physical structures that can be replaced by stone, or imprints in mud.

The process of fossilization is actually VERY rare. Most just rot.

However, for life we have found fossils for, they absolutely agree with evolution.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.


We scientists tend to not believe in magic.

What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.

God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.


----------



## MarkDuffy

mhansen2 said:


> For some time now, I've believed Man created God in his image so the priests (or their equivalent) could keep the masses in line.


And to answer the unanswerable. Our brain needs answers and if we don't have them, we make it up. Primitive man did not have science so they came up with magic as the solution.


----------



## mhansen2

Well said.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> We scientists tend to not believe in magic.
> 
> What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.
> 
> God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.
Click to expand...


No, you do believe in magic.  After all, you believe the universe created itself.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed.  There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> The first life did not leave fossils. That requires physical structures that can be replaced by stone, or imprints in mud.
> 
> The process of fossilization is actually VERY rare. Most just rot.
> 
> However, for life we have found fossils for, they absolutely agree with evolution.
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## ScienceRocks

except the creationist have zero evidence and have to lie about every little thing from point a to point b. Making shit up isn't how we do things in the real world.

Using the text of the bible sure as fuck doesn't fill the requirements.


Science really does have data and evidence for what it says and my friends that is all that matters.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> We scientists tend to not believe in magic.
> 
> What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.
> 
> God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do believe in magic.  After all, you believe the universe created itself.
Click to expand...

We both have origins problems. I admit mine. Do you admit yours?

God was an ET. Where did your alien God come from? Is your God not proof earth has been visited by aliens?

Think about it. You have an advanced alien  God trying to explain creation to barely-not-savages. You think he will start with thermodynamics, quantum mechanics & evolution?


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> We scientists tend to not believe in magic.
> 
> What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.
> 
> God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do believe in magic.  After all, you believe the universe created itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We both have origins problems. I admit mine. Do you admit yours?
Click to expand...


Science shows that the universe had a beginning.  Something, or someone, "caused" the universe to happen.  Nothing in this universe happens without something else causing it to happen, correct?  Does this not point to something or someone that is OUTSIDE of this universe getting it all started?  It's just simple logic, really.  

There are other reasons as to why I believe that we have a creator, aka, "God".  For most atheists, if they can't wrap their hands around something, then it can't exist.  They can't think outside the box.  Their thinking is very narrow.  Some people briefly die, come back and share incredible stories of meeting Jesus, loved ones that past previously, etc.  Of course, since it didn't happen to the atheist, he knows it never really happened.  Like I said, not only do atheists NOT believe in a creator, they don't want there to be a creator.  

God is and always has been.  That's a mind-bending concept that is beyond our ability to comprehend, at least in this existence.


----------



## mhansen2

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.  You feel there is a divine being.  Fine.  Others, like me, look elsewhere for answers.  That also is fine.  We don't have to criticize each other.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> We scientists tend to not believe in magic.
> 
> What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.
> 
> God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do believe in magic.  After all, you believe the universe created itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We both have origins problems. I admit mine. Do you admit yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science shows that the universe had a beginning.
Click to expand...


The main current hypothesis is like that true. We call this the current universe. This is due to our current thinking that the expansion appears to be enough to continue.

There are alternatives like this ~ Oscillating Universe Theory - Universe Today



> Something, or someone, "caused" the universe to happen.  Nothing in this universe happens without something else causing it to happen, correct?



In general that would be a starting hypothesis. We scientists have a big problem with relying on magic as a solution. We also have a problem with singularities. Why only one God? As soon as you admit a magical God, we say who magically created God, since you all freely admit it can happen multiple times if it can happen once. 



> Does this not point to something or someone that is OUTSIDE of this universe getting it all started?  It's just simple logic, really.



Not necessarily. You can have two universes created, one matter, the other anti-matter. That would fit current physics.



> There are other reasons as to why I believe that we have a creator, aka, "God".



It is difficult to argue against singularity in cosmology, but FOR singularity in God. You all appear to not use logic.



> For most atheists, if they can't wrap their hands around something, then it can't exist.  They can't think outside the box.  Their thinking is very narrow.



OK, now I'm laughing. One of the main things scientists do is think outside the box and prove previous hypotheses WRONG. That is what science is.

Where are religionists that try to prove God wrong?



> Some people briefly die, come back and share incredible stories of meeting Jesus, loved ones that past previously, etc.  Of course, since it didn't happen to the atheist, he knows it never really happened.



Correct, we do not believe those stories.



> Like I said, not only do atheists NOT believe in a creator, they don't want there to be a creator.



Nonsense



> God is and always has been.  That's a mind-bending concept that is beyond our ability to comprehend, at least in this existence.



My response here is the same as yours. The universe has always been.

........................

What do you think made God create? Did he just wake up one morning and go "I think I will create a universe today!" How long do you think he sat there in boredom until he got the idea? Do you think he has done this multiple times? How about other earth's in this universe? One and done?


----------



## MarkDuffy

So basically, it is not that we scientists have a problem with a God. We have a problem with magic. If we allow magic, then science becomes extremely hard to defend. It has no purpose.


----------



## K9Buck

The universe had a beginning.  To say otherwise is disingenuous. 

Where there is a creation, there is a creator.  Next you're going to tell us that Mount Rushmore made itself.


----------



## Ray9

Agnostic here. Why? Because the non-existence of a creator is as unknowable as the existence of one. The theist and the atheist both have the same problem-neither has proof. Science relies on repeatable evidence and there is no evidence that the universe came about randomly.

The universe is filled with something scientists call dark matter but it can't be detected directly. Its existence can only be extrapolated by how things we can detect act and react. The universe should be flying apart in all directions but it's not because something science can't explain is holding it together. 

God? Who knows? Our senses are tethered to the Earth and Earthly things. Proof of God? Show me. Agnosticism is the only position that makes sense.


----------



## Boss

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?




Several points need to be made. 

First and foremost... You are demanding physical evidence for a spiritual entity. Physical science only deals with the physical nature of the universe. It cannot evaluate anything outside of physical nature, which would include God. So you say you're putting cards on the table but that's totally worthless in a game of billiards. You need to be able to evaluate spiritual evidence to prove spiritual entities. You don't accept spiritual evidence so this is not possible. A billiard game can never be won with a Royal Flush. 

Second point... It's a false equivalency to argue God vs. Evolution. I would surmise that God created Evolution. And Evolution, in all it's wondrous glory, is simply not an explanation for origin. If you have legitimate scientific proof of origin, you have a Nobel Prize waiting for you. There isn't even a prevailing accepted theory for origin. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated and it's actually about 120 various theories, some of which contradict each other. 

As for Evolution, as worthless as it is for explaining origin, it also has some serious flaws. Darwin's theories were written in 1899 and we've learned a great deal about living things since then. There are large swaths of Darwin's speculations that have been totally debunked but his devotees will never tell you that. To date, there is no evidence in geology, biology, paleontology, anthropology or any other science to prove cross-genus evolution. I'm not claiming it's not true but we should find plenty of evidence for it, if it happened. 

Finally, you mentioned the Big Bang and then scoffed at the idea God could've done it. You then ask us to think harder about it and followed with some unintelligible rant about the complexity of God versus the "simplicity" of physical processes. Sorry, but I must've missed the part where you explained how a physical universe, with all it's energy and matter, was created from nothing. Again, another Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove what happened before the Big Bang. 

Allow me to broaden your mind with a thought here. How can something create itself? Simple but perplexing, isn't it? Think hard about that. To create itself, it would have to already exist, which means it didn't create itself. This is what is called a *paradox*. Now... apply this to _physical nature._ Before physical nature existed, something had to create it. From a purely practical perspective, _spiritual nature_ explains this. In fact, it's the only logical explanation. 

Okay, so I know what your first question is... what created spiritual nature? But this is where "the devil" messes with you. For the context of "creation" is a physical thing. When we say something is "created" it means that something is brought into physical presence or state of being. Spiritual things don't require physical presence or state of being, that is what defines them as _spiritual_. So, nothing created the Creator... it existed before space and time and all things physical.


----------



## Eaglewings

Take a look at this link and how many scientist's who believe in God..

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia


ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?




Ask and the door will open ~ ( this your heart and soul who will seek and many find God)

Take a look at this link and how many scientist's who believed/believe in God..

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia


.


----------



## tecoyah

Okay...now compare this to how many don't.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> The universe had a beginning.  To say otherwise is disingenuous.



If there was a God there, then the universe had already begun.



> Where there is a creation, there is a creator.  Next you're going to tell us that Mount Rushmore made itself.



Who created God? You just said God must have had a creator.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several points need to be made.
> 
> First and foremost... You are demanding physical evidence for a spiritual entity. Physical science only deals with the physical nature of the universe. It cannot evaluate anything outside of physical nature, which would include God. So you say you're putting cards on the table but that's totally worthless in a game of billiards. You need to be able to evaluate spiritual evidence to prove spiritual entities. You don't accept spiritual evidence so this is not possible. A billiard game can never be won with a Royal Flush.
> 
> Second point... It's a false equivalency to argue God vs. Evolution. I would surmise that God created Evolution. And Evolution, in all it's wondrous glory, is simply not an explanation for origin. If you have legitimate scientific proof of origin, you have a Nobel Prize waiting for you. There isn't even a prevailing accepted theory for origin. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated and it's actually about 120 various theories, some of which contradict each other.
> 
> As for Evolution, as worthless as it is for explaining origin, it also has some serious flaws. Darwin's theories were written in 1899 and we've learned a great deal about living things since then. There are large swaths of Darwin's speculations that have been totally debunked but his devotees will never tell you that. To date, there is no evidence in geology, biology, paleontology, anthropology or any other science to prove cross-genus evolution. I'm not claiming it's not true but we should find plenty of evidence for it, if it happened.
> 
> Finally, you mentioned the Big Bang and then scoffed at the idea God could've done it. You then ask us to think harder about it and followed with some unintelligible rant about the complexity of God versus the "simplicity" of physical processes. Sorry, but I must've missed the part where you explained how a physical universe, with all it's energy and matter, was created from nothing. Again, another Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove what happened before the Big Bang.
> 
> Allow me to broaden your mind with a thought here. How can something create itself? Simple but perplexing, isn't it? Think hard about that. To create itself, it would have to already exist, which means it didn't create itself. This is what is called a *paradox*. Now... apply this to _physical nature._ Before physical nature existed, something had to create it. From a purely practical perspective, _spiritual nature_ explains this. In fact, it's the only logical explanation.
> 
> Okay, so I know what your first question is... what created spiritual nature? But this is where "the devil" messes with you. For the context of "creation" is a physical thing. When we say something is "created" it means that something is brought into physical presence or state of being. Spiritual things don't require physical presence or state of being, that is what defines them as _spiritual_. So, nothing created the Creator... it existed before space and time and all things physical.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman argument

A spiritual being who can mess with the physical world, but the spirit gives him protection from the physical world. You creator tells us that we will become spirit or alternatively, we are also spirit. 

Thus, there is no protection and you must explain the origin of God.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Nice strawman argument
> 
> A spiritual being who can mess with the physical world, but the spirit gives him protection from the physical world. You creator tells us that we will become spirit or alternatively, we are also spirit.
> 
> Thus, there is no protection and you must explain the origin of God.



Not a strawman argument. A logical argument you have no rebuttal for. 

I don't need to explain the existence of something that has alway existed. You continue to demand a physical explanation for that which is not physical. It's really no different than me demanding you spiritually prove gravity is only a physical force. 

As for your line about "protection from the physical" ...that made me laugh. Why would God need protection from what He created? That doesn't even make rational sense. 

For the record, I can sympathize with your viewpoint. If I did not believe in Spiritual Nature, I couldn't accept the concept of a non-physical existence of anything. So, I fully understand, in your mind, the ONLY "existence" is physical. If something has no physical existence, it cannot exist. However, I can shatter your beliefs in one word... *Love*. Things beyond the physical can and do exist, whether you choose to believe they do or not. The existence of non-physical things requires faith and isn't proved with physical science. There is no way for me to quantify how much love you have for your mother... or how much more you love your mother than your Britney Spears CD collection.


----------



## Death Angel

I wouldn't even call light, energy, magnetism or gravity "physical." We really can't explain these things. They border closer to spirit than matter.

He's desperate to find reasons NOT to believe in the Creator.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman argument
> 
> A spiritual being who can mess with the physical world, but the spirit gives him protection from the physical world. You creator tells us that we will become spirit or alternatively, we are also spirit.
> 
> Thus, there is no protection and you must explain the origin of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a strawman argument. A logical argument you have no rebuttal for.
> 
> I don't need to explain the existence of something that has alway existed. You continue to demand a physical explanation for that which is not physical. It's really no different than me demanding you spiritually prove gravity is only a physical force.
Click to expand...


Then I do not need to explain the origin of the universe & life. I can use the very same ridiculous defense.



> As for your line about "protection from the physical" ...that made me laugh. Why would God need protection from what He created? That doesn't even make rational sense.



No dummy. You used that as a defense of your argument. It fails. 



> For the record, I can sympathize with your viewpoint. If I did not believe in Spiritual Nature, I couldn't accept the concept of a non-physical existence of anything. So, I fully understand, in your mind, the ONLY "existence" is physical. If something has no physical existence, it cannot exist. However, I can shatter your beliefs in one word... *Love*. Things beyond the physical can and do exist, whether you choose to believe they do or not. The existence of non-physical things requires faith and isn't proved with physical science. There is no way for me to quantify how much love you have for your mother... or how much more you love your mother than your Britney Spears CD collection.



You cannot explain where God came from either. None of you can. You have no case against science. You just admitted it. 

I can show where your God came from previous God hypotheses. Christianity arose via religious evolution due to natural selection.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Then I do not need to explain the origin of the universe & life. I can use the very same ridiculous defense.



It's not about needing to... you can't. You have a tool called physical science. It's extremely useful in explaining things about the physical universe in which you live. It cannot explain things that aren't physical in nature... it's not the proper tool. 



MarkDuffy said:


> No dummy. You used that as a defense of your argument. It fails.



Really? You must be imagining words I never typed if you read something from me which stated God needs to be defended from physics. I simply articulated that God is not a physical being and, therefore, isn't subject to physical evaluation of physical science. Now, if I could magically turn God into a physical being, you could use science to evaluate physical existence, but I can't. 



MarkDuffy said:


> You cannot explain where God came from either. None of you can.



Came from? What do you mean? You continue to talk in physical terms about a non-physical entity. God doesn't "come from" anywhere. Where does the love for your mother come from? (and don't say inside your heart because all we find there is blood and arteries.) 



MarkDuffy said:


> You have no case against science.



LOL... I have never professed to have a case against science. How bizarre! Where in the hell are you getting these ideas from? 



MarkDuffy said:


> I can show where your God came from previous God hypotheses. Christianity arose via religious evolution due to natural selection.



No, you really CAN'T do this. You can attack Christian belief, which is really your entire shtick. That doesn't explain where God came from. Long, long before there were ever any organized religions, there was human spirituality. In fact, it actually dates back to the oldest human civilization we've ever discovered. The archeological evidence shows they routinely practiced ritual ceremonial burial using red ocher. This proves a spiritual belief of some kind. There is no physical explanation for ritual ceremonial burials using red ocher. 

Often, we hear the atheist argument that man invented God to deal with fear of the unknown or cope with their own mortality. This absolutely contradicts every theory Darwin ever espoused about natural selection... AND... we find no evidence of this in any other form of life on the planet, now or in the past. It is clearly an argument with zero scientific support. Man has fear of the unknown and needs to cope with his mortality BECAUSE he is spiritually connected!


----------



## K9Buck

Atheists believe, and will always believe, that everything came from nothing.


----------



## tecoyah

K9Buck said:


> Atheists believe, and will always believe, that everything came from nothing.


Untrue...as an Atheist allow me to express what actually defines the majority of us.

*"I don't know"*

 This very simple statement might seem strange to the theist who claim the DO know, but nevertheless puts a nutshell around the basic premise. Few are ignorant enough to make the claim you do for us, but most Atheist/Agnostic people understand that we humans have limited knowledge pertaining to what created our universe, we simply do not accept the "Sky Fairy" hypothesis based on not only the lack of supporting data but, the simple fact that there cannot be one considering the large amount of competing versions claiming all the others are fake.


----------



## K9Buck

tecoyah said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists believe, and will always believe, that everything came from nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue...as an Atheist allow me to express what actually defines the majority of us.
> 
> *"I don't know"*
> 
> This very simple statement might seem strange to the theist who claim the DO know, but nevertheless puts a nutshell around the basic premise. Few are ignorant enough to make the claim you do for us, but most Atheist/Agnostic people understand that we humans have limited knowledge pertaining to what created our universe, we simply do not accept the "Sky Fairy" hypothesis based on not only the lack of supporting data but, the simple fact that there cannot be one considering the large amount of competing versions claiming all the others are fake.
Click to expand...


Well, everything either came from nothing or a superior intellect created this realm along with all of its inhabitants.  You mock such a theory as believing in a "sky fairy" while pretending that the theory that the universe created itself is somehow an acceptable "scientific" hypothesis.  You guys pretty much adhere to the ABG theory, which stands for "Anything but God".


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> You cannot explain where God came from either. None of you can. You have no case against science. You just admitted it.



The fact that we're here should be evidence enough to convince you that there exists a super-intellect that is not bound by the laws of this universe.  Unless, of course, you believe that the universe created itself and that life just magically appeared.  It's one or the other.  Which is really easier to believe?  Then consider all of the other evidence of a creator (intelligent design) and all of the people who have claimed to met Jesus, etc., then the preponderance of the evidence is on a creator.  Is that proof?  Of course not.  But, it is evidence, which is what the op sought.


----------



## tecoyah

K9Buck said:


> tecoyah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists believe, and will always believe, that everything came from nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue...as an Atheist allow me to express what actually defines the majority of us.
> 
> *"I don't know"*
> 
> This very simple statement might seem strange to the theist who claim the DO know, but nevertheless puts a nutshell around the basic premise. Few are ignorant enough to make the claim you do for us, but most Atheist/Agnostic people understand that we humans have limited knowledge pertaining to what created our universe, we simply do not accept the "Sky Fairy" hypothesis based on not only the lack of supporting data but, the simple fact that there cannot be one considering the large amount of competing versions claiming all the others are fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, everything either came from nothing or a superior intellect created this realm along with all of its inhabitants.  You mock such a theory as believing in a "sky fairy" while pretending that the theory that the universe created itself is somehow an acceptable "scientific" hypothesis.  You guys pretty much adhere to the ABG theory, which stands for "Anything but God".
Click to expand...

 Obviously I am dealing with an extremely limited intellect and rather unused imagination. The term "Sky Fairy" is not so much mocking as a description that well defines a magical entity that dwells in the heavens. "Everything" could have come from "Nothing" but there is no evidence to suggest this, any more than evidence suggesting a God did it.
 Many hypothesis exist including quantum explanations but, none predict this all "Poofed" into existence for no reason and with no cause.


----------



## tecoyah

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot explain where God came from either. None of you can. You have no case against science. You just admitted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we're here should be evidence enough to convince you that there exists a super-intellect that is not bound by the laws of this universe.  *Unless, of course, you believe that the universe created itself and that life just magically appeared*.  ....snip.....
Click to expand...


YOU are the only one suggesting this.


----------



## K9Buck

tecoyah said:


> Obviously I am dealing with an extremely limited intellect



Stopped reading right there.  Time to put you on "ignore".  Good bye.


----------



## tecoyah

K9Buck said:


> tecoyah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I am dealing with an extremely limited intellect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stopped reading right there.  Time to put you on "ignore".  Good bye.
Click to expand...

Have A Nice Day


----------



## MarkDuffy

What I want to know is why did God abandon you believers?

He said he, through Jesus, was coming back soon. Don't give me the year is a thousand garbage, cuz God was talking in our language to us. 

It's been 2000 years and we are tired of waiting. The media has a lot of questions for the interview.


----------



## Political Junky

The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Political Junky said:


> The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
> It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.


That is why God needs to come back. He needs to explain reality to the believers. They will be shocked and probably want to crucify him again, as believers crucified Jesus.

But the point remains. Where is God? He could settle this argument very easily.


----------



## Old Rocks

K9Buck said:


> I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed.  There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.


Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.


----------



## Old Rocks

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> We scientists tend to not believe in magic.
> 
> What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.
> 
> God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do believe in magic.  After all, you believe the universe created itself.
Click to expand...

And you believe that God created itself.


----------



## Old Rocks

K9Buck said:


> The universe had a beginning.  To say otherwise is disingenuous.
> 
> Where there is a creation, there is a creator.  Next you're going to tell us that Mount Rushmore made itself.


Now that is about as shitty of logic as there is.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> What I want to know is why did God abandon you believers?
> 
> He said he, through Jesus, was coming back soon. Don't give me the year is a thousand garbage, cuz God was talking in our language to us.
> 
> It's been 2000 years and we are tired of waiting. The media has a lot of questions for the interview.



Here's another genius that thinks the universe created itself.  I've got a bridge to sell this guy.


----------



## K9Buck

Old Rocks said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe had a beginning.  To say otherwise is disingenuous.
> 
> Where there is a creation, there is a creator.  Next you're going to tell us that Mount Rushmore made itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is about as shitty of logic as there is.
Click to expand...


What's your theory?  

Crickets.


----------



## K9Buck

Old Rocks said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed.  There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.
Click to expand...


Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence.  NOTHING.  That's because you've got NOTHING.


----------



## K9Buck

Old Rocks said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being.  Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic.  They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> We scientists tend to not believe in magic.
> 
> What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.
> 
> God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you do believe in magic.  After all, you believe the universe created itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you believe that God created itself.
Click to expand...


God has always existed, which is something that is difficult for us to comprehend since everything in our universe, even the universe itself, has a beginning.


----------



## K9Buck

Political Junky said:


> The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
> It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.



Guys like you always spew this gibberish but never offer your own theories on how the universe and life came into existence.  Guys like you actually REJECT the science that very strongly suggests a creator.


----------



## anotherlife

It is not true, that God can be seen only by the eye of the believer.


----------



## Political Junky

K9Buck said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
> It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you always spew this gibberish but never offer your own theories on how the universe and life came into existence.  Guys like you actually REJECT the science that very strongly suggests a creator.
Click to expand...

Science does explain it, but you refuse to accept it.


----------



## K9Buck

Political Junky said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
> It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys like you always spew this gibberish but never offer your own theories on how the universe and life came into existence.  Guys like you actually REJECT the science that very strongly suggests a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science does explain it, but you refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...


Let's hear it.


----------



## Boss

Old Rocks said:


> Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.



You're right, it is chemistry. But that begs the question, why can't you reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled lab environment.... especially, since you conclude it must've been easy? 

You're wrong about the problem not being the finding of the route... that's precisely the problem, you haven't found the route. You have about 127 competing theories of abiogenesis, none have ever been proven. What's the problem? It's supposed to have happened easily in the inconsistent muck of the primordial soup... you have state of the art labs where every aspect of the environment can be controlled at your fingertips. 

When we study life in all it's splendor, we find a fascinating collection of symbiotic and interdependent relationships... this can't live without that... and that can't live without something else. Many things are entirely dependent upon things like the moon, tidal currents, ocean convection, seasons. Would they exist without them? They couldn't exist without them! We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. 

So I think the existence of life is much more complicated that simply having a rock in suitable proximity to a sun.


----------



## K9Buck

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it is chemistry. But that begs the question, why can't you reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled lab environment.... especially, since you conclude it must've been easy?
> 
> You're wrong about the problem not being the finding of the route... that's precisely the problem, you haven't found the route. You have about 127 competing theories of abiogenesis, none have ever been proven. What's the problem? It's supposed to have happened easily in the inconsistent muck of the primordial soup... you have state of the art labs where every aspect of the environment can be controlled at your fingertips.
> 
> When we study life in all it's splendor, we find a fascinating collection of symbiotic and interdependent relationships... this can't live without that... and that can't live without something else. Many things are entirely dependent upon things like the moon, tidal currents, ocean convection, seasons. Would they exist without them? They couldn't exist without them! We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life.
> 
> So I think the existence of life is much more complicated that simply having a rock in suitable proximity to a sun.
Click to expand...


None of that matters to the close-minded, narrow-thinking atheists that tell us that the universe and life created themselves.  LOL!


----------



## mamooth

K9Buck said:


> Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence.  NOTHING.  That's because you've got NOTHING.



So?

At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"

In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> So?
> 
> At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"
> 
> In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.



You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know! Read this goddamn thread! Over and over, we have morons speaking in absolute terms about scientific theories as if they are proven science. We repeatedly put up with you shitstains denouncing God and proclaiming there is no such thing in the most snarky and condescending ways you can think up while ridiculing anyone who professes belief in God. It's the one thing you DON'T do, to admit you don't know! 

But thank you for admitting that you don't know and you're really being totally dishonest about that!


----------



## K9Buck

mamooth said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence.  NOTHING.  That's because you've got NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"
> 
> In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.
Click to expand...


Well, that's just it.  Atheists don't say "I don't know" but instead mock us the "sky fairy" crap.  Then, they pretend that their belief that the universe created itself is rationale, logical thinking.  For the record, I believe we have a creator, but I don't know that as a fact.  That's the difference between the atheist and me.


----------



## RWS

Boss said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"
> 
> In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know! Read this goddamn thread! Over and over, we have morons speaking in absolute terms about scientific theories as if they are proven science. We repeatedly put up with you shitstains denouncing God and proclaiming there is no such thing in the most snarky and condescending ways you can think up while ridiculing anyone who professes belief in God. It's the one thing you DON'T do, to admit you don't know!
> 
> But thank you for admitting that you don't know and you're really being totally dishonest about that!
Click to expand...

Are you having a temper tantrum?

You seem to speak in absolute terms as well. Actually more absolute terms than any of us, but you like to leave them "fuzzy".. But of course, you're the Boss, and your statements are 100% right. Right?


----------



## RWS

Here's one of your fuzzies, that you will argue that you meant something else afterwards:

*BOSS SAYS: "We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. "*

Oxygen is 33% of the ocean. It's called H2O.

It doesn't require motion of the ocean. It IS the ocean.

Ok, so I know you're going to say, that you meant something different, like you always do. But you keep saying stuff like this, and then backtracking when you're called out on it. And insisting you're the smartest person on the planet.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know!



But I just did, and I am an atheist, hence you're clearly lying.

So, moral low ground to you. As usual.

Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.

You also might want to try to act rational. Your rage and hatred seems to be getting the better of you.


----------



## K9Buck

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I just did, and I am an atheist, hence you're clearly lying.
> 
> So, moral low ground to you. As usual.
> 
> Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.
> 
> You also might want to try to act rational. Your rage and hatred seems to be getting the better of you.
Click to expand...


Agnostics don't know if there is a creator but leave open the possibility.
Atheists believe there is no creator.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?



The odd of these proteins magically combining themselves into a cell are prohibitive against your bizarre theory of "evolution"


----------



## Boss

RWS said:


> Here's one of your fuzzies, that you will argue that you meant something else afterwards:
> 
> *BOSS SAYS: "We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. "*
> 
> Oxygen is 33% of the ocean. It's called H2O.
> 
> It doesn't require motion of the ocean. It IS the ocean.
> 
> Ok, so I know you're going to say, that you meant something different, like you always do. But you keep saying stuff like this, and then backtracking when you're called out on it. And insisting you're the smartest person on the planet.



Well no... Water is not oxygen. It is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.



I've never denied that I don't know how the universe started. The fact is, it did start somehow. 

Given that fact, we have two basic options.... physical nature created itself or spiritual nature created it. 

No matter what you believe, you have to believe something came from nothing. Some believe there is a physical explanation and some believe the explanation is spiritual.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot explain where God came from either. None of you can. You have no case against science. You just admitted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we're here should be evidence enough to convince you that there exists a super-intellect that is not bound by the laws of this universe.
Click to expand...


That was "wisdom" from the stone age, when they used to sacrifice animals and even people to the almighty God.  We are no longer that stupid.



> Unless, of course, you believe that the universe created itself and that life just magically appeared.



That is your religionist hypothesis & not only magic but advanced magic. Your God claims to have created advanced



> It's one or the other.  Which is really easier to believe?



Science is of course. We don't predict that there was a shazaam moment and poof everything appeared including man.

We have the fossil record/plate tetonics & you have nothing.



> Then consider all of the other evidence of a creator (intelligent design) and all of the people who have claimed to met Jesus, etc., then the preponderance of the evidence is on a creator.  Is that proof?  Of course not.  But, it is evidence, which is what the op sought.



The only people who have claimed to meet Jesus are in ONE book of fiction.


----------



## IsaacNewton

The OP states 'evidence of god'. Other than a book from 2,000 years ago that was redacted, edited, changed, added to and subtracted from, translated and retranslated, what evidence is there? And what evidence is there that it was YOUR god that did whatever it is you think he/she did, rather than the other 40,000 gods people have worshipped the last 10,000 years.


----------



## Political Junky

K9Buck said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence.  NOTHING.  That's because you've got NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"
> 
> In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's just it.  Atheists don't say "I don't know" but instead mock us the "sky fairy" crap.  Then, they pretend that their belief that the universe created itself is rationale, logical thinking.  For the record, I believe we have a creator, but I don't know that as a fact.  That's the difference between the atheist and me.
Click to expand...

Well, it is weird that you choose your "sky fairy" over science.


----------



## K9Buck

Atheists are morons.  Yea, the universe created itself.  

PM guys for a GREAT deal on a bridge that I own in San Francisco.


----------



## Political Junky

K9Buck said:


> Atheists are morons.  Yea, the universe created itself.
> 
> PM guys for a GREAT deal on a bridge that I own in San Francisco.


Prove God.


----------



## K9Buck

Political Junky said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists are morons.  Yea, the universe created itself.
> 
> PM guys for a GREAT deal on a bridge that I own in San Francisco.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God.
Click to expand...


Prove you exist.  Prove we're  not a small child's dream


----------



## Political Junky

^^ Fail


----------



## Sunni Man

skye said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes,  at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.
> 
> That day  we will have no doubts!
Click to expand...

It takes far more *faith* to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang theory, than to believe in God.  ....


----------



## skye

Sunni Man said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes,  at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.
> 
> That day  we will have no doubts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more *faith* to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang theory, than to believe in God.  ....
Click to expand...




You think so?



 I personally think it takes more faith to believe in GOD.


----------



## Death Angel

K9Buck said:


> Prove you exist. Prove we're not a small child's dream


Wish him into the cornfield Billy.


----------



## K9Buck

Death Angel said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove you exist. Prove we're not a small child's dream
> 
> 
> 
> Wish him into the cornfield Billy.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Billy and the folks patronizing him remind me of Jung-un and his circle.  

Did you see the sequel to this?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it is chemistry. But that begs the question, why can't you reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled lab environment.... especially, since you conclude it must've been easy?
Click to expand...


No one ever said it was easy. It took a billion years. Very difficult to do in the lab, but we have made remarkable progress.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth



> You're wrong about the problem not being the finding of the route... that's precisely the problem, you haven't found the route. You have about 127 competing theories of abiogenesis, none have ever been proven. What's the problem? It's supposed to have happened easily in the inconsistent muck of the primordial soup... you have state of the art labs where every aspect of the environment can be controlled at your fingertips.



You really need to get out more and smell the coffee.

Dividing Droplets Could Explain Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine



> When we study life in all it's splendor, we find a fascinating collection of symbiotic and interdependent relationships... this can't live without that... and that can't live without something else.



More proof that God didn't do it. The vastness of life is too complex for a God.



> Many things are entirely dependent upon things like the moon, tidal currents, ocean convection, seasons. Would they exist without them? They couldn't exist without them!



Yes, there is a moon hypothesis, but that only claims to make life on earth easier. The rest is just physics.



> We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life.



This is nonsense. Molecular atmospheric oxygen is not required for life. First life were anerobic heterotrophs. Oxygen atmosphere came later due to autotrophs having evolved from them.

Plant Life: Anaerobes and Heterotrophs

As far as your moving ocean, the ocean moves via corolis effect that is caused by earth's rotation & atmospheric weather patterns.

NOAA's National Ocean Service Education: Currents: Coriolis Effect



> So I think the existence of life is much more complicated that simply having a rock in suitable proximity to a sun.



I know of no one who makes this specific claim. When people like me claim the universe is teeming with life, we mean that there are a LOT of stars out there. We also do not mean human level life.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> More proof that God didn't do it.



You apparently don't know what "proof" means.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one of your fuzzies, that you will argue that you meant something else afterwards:
> 
> *BOSS SAYS: "We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. "*
> 
> Oxygen is 33% of the ocean. It's called H2O.
> 
> It doesn't require motion of the ocean. It IS the ocean.
> 
> Ok, so I know you're going to say, that you meant something different, like you always do. But you keep saying stuff like this, and then backtracking when you're called out on it. And insisting you're the smartest person on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no... Water is not oxygen. It is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.
Click to expand...

Way to go Einstein! And what does photosynthesis do?

Hint ===>>> 6CO2 + *6H2O* ------> C6H12O6 + *6O2
*
The oxygen comes from splitting the water, not the CO2, in case you are confused.

Plants Don’t Convert CO2 into O2


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?



There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.
Click to expand...


Or maybe atheists have considered it and found it to be bad evidence.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed.  There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence.  NOTHING.  That's because you've got NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Believers offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.


----------



## MarkDuffy

CrusaderFrank said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The odd of these proteins magically combining themselves into a cell are prohibitive against your bizarre theory of "evolution"
Click to expand...

No one claims this except you believers, dummy.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never denied that I don't know how the universe started. The fact is, it did start somehow.
> 
> Given that fact, we have two basic options.... physical nature created itself or spiritual nature created it.
> 
> No matter what you believe, you have to believe something came from nothing. Some believe there is a physical explanation and some believe the explanation is spiritual.
Click to expand...


There is only one explanation of creation, ours.

You spirit walkers have no explanation for the creation of God. Worse, you allow a spirit w/o a universe.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Sunni Man said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?
> 
> Well you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome..  A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
> Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes,  at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.
> 
> That day  we will have no doubts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more *faith* to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang theory, than to believe in God.  ....
Click to expand...

So, you admit believers have very little faith

LOL


----------



## Marion Morrison

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?



Evidence to the contrary=-?

Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide any eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore you're a man that wants to dress up like a girl, so..wtf?!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.
Click to expand...


Do tell, how so?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"How so?"... what?  How do we know that dinosaurs roamed the earth?  We found their remains.  In a deterministic universe, there is no better or simpler explanation than to say these were creatures who lived on our planet.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?


Sadly, apparently not. Worse, with the advance of science, he apparently is too afraid to come back too. 

Their God has abandoned them in their time of need.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.
Click to expand...

The believers also need to explain why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible. 

It is obvious that man made God and not God made man, or God would know this simple fact. 

God knows nothing man didn't know. We know why God was so stupid, he is made-made fantasy.


----------



## Marion Morrison

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The believers also need to explain why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible.
> 
> It is obvious that man made God and not God made man, or God would know this simple fact.
> 
> God knows nothing man didn't know. We know why God was so stupid, he is made-made fantasy.
Click to expand...


So you're claiming you know everything that God knows, correct? 

Nah, somehow, I'm of the opinion you're pretty much derp, sorry.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The believers also need to explain why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible.
> 
> It is obvious that man made God and not God made man, or God would know this simple fact.
> 
> God knows nothing man didn't know. We know why God was so stupid, he is made-made fantasy.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, once a person has introduced magic as a valid idea, that person no longer has to explain anything at all. "It's magic!", discussion over.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So you're claiming you know everything that God knows said:


> He is saying the Bible certainly makes it appear that God didn't know anything more than what the average,  ignorant goat herder knew at the time it was written.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Why didn't God show up in the Americas, Australia & the Far East?

Oh that's right. The believer's God didn't know they existed.


----------



## MarkDuffy

During the time of God, believers thought the earth was the center of the universe.

Why didn't God correct them?


----------



## Sunni Man

MarkDuffy said:


> So, you admit believers have very little faith


Nope  ....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sunni Man said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit believers have very little faith
> 
> 
> 
> Nope  ....
Click to expand...


Oh look, a sectarian warrior... seeing j3ws in every puddle...


----------



## Marion Morrison

MarkDuffy said:


> Why didn't God show up in the Americas, Australia & the Far East?
> 
> Oh that's right. The believer's God didn't know they existed.



Oh but he did, but you don't know enough about things to realize that.

Check you out some American Indian folklore sometime.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't God show up in the Americas, Australia & the Far East?
> 
> Oh that's right. The believer's God didn't know they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but he did, but you don't know enough about things to realize that.
> 
> Check you out some American Indian folklore sometime.
Click to expand...



And there it is, just like i said.  Once "magic" has been introduced, nothing has to be explained and everything can just be dictated to have originated from God.  Every religion throughout history?  That was god, making an appearance, of course.  How convenient.  Scientists do not have this luxury.  Nor do they want it.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Here’s What Happened the Day the Dinosaurs Died

Why was there no 2nd Ark? Why is this not mentioned in the Bible?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Marion Morrison said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't God show up in the Americas, Australia & the Far East?
> 
> Oh that's right. The believer's God didn't know they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but he did, but you don't know enough about things to realize that.
> 
> Check you out some American Indian folklore sometime.
Click to expand...

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but those were different Gods with different myths. Why didn't God tell the Hebrews about them?


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> No one ever said it was easy. It took a billion years. Very difficult to do in the lab, but we have made remarkable progress.



Neeuupp.... You've not made ANY progress because it's never been done. 

You can show me all these sensationalistic stories but when you read them you understand they've still not created life from inorganic materials. It simply hasn't been done. 



MarkDuffy said:


> More proof that God didn't do it. The vastness of life is too complex for a God.



LOL... You might be slightly underestimating the power of an omnipotent superbeing. 



MarkDuffy said:


> Yes, there is a moon hypothesis, but that only claims to make life on earth easier. The rest is just physics.



Say what you will, I think the moon is fairly important to life. 



MarkDuffy said:


> This is nonsense. Molecular atmospheric oxygen is not required for life. First life were anerobic heterotrophs. Oxygen atmosphere came later due to autotrophs having evolved from them.



Well, that's your theory, anyway. Still, the vast array of life we find on Earth couldn't exist without molecular atmospheric oxygen, including much of the life in the ocean. I've read the various abiogenesis theories and they pretty much all conclude the motion of the early ocean was essential in the propagation of life. 



MarkDuffy said:


> As far as your moving ocean, the ocean moves via corolis effect that is caused by earth's rotation & atmospheric weather patterns.



Mostly it's due to the gravitational forces of the moon and sun working on the ocean. 



MarkDuffy said:


> I know of no one who makes this specific claim. When people like me claim the universe is teeming with life, we mean that there are a LOT of stars out there. We also do not mean human level life.




Well when we're talking about aliens who have supposedly visited our planet and such, or who MAY visit someday... sounds to me like you're talking about human level life or greater. Yes, I am aware there are lots of stars out there. It's unlikely that any of them have more than one planet in the proper zone for life to even exist. Most of the stars out there actually have a companion star in close proximity, which would probably dismiss the chances of life on their planets because of the heat from dual or triple suns. Then there are the million or so circumstances like the moon and tides and seasons and atmosphere and electromagnetic fields, etc. 

Now , it would seem to me, a reasonable type person, that before you make the claim "the universe is teaming with life" you might want to actually FIND some life elsewhere first. You know... like a simple organism or something! Because, before you've done that, if you're running around making such a claim, you sound like an insane idiot who is practicing faith in a religious belief. Just saying!


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe atheists have considered it and found it to be bad evidence.
Click to expand...


Atheists never consider anything they can't hold in their hands.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said it was easy. It took a billion years. Very difficult to do in the lab, but we have made remarkable progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neeuupp.... You've not made ANY progress because it's never been done.
> 
> You can show me all these sensationalistic stories but when you read them you understand they've still not created life from inorganic materials. It simply hasn't been done.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More proof that God didn't do it. The vastness of life is too complex for a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... You might be slightly underestimating the power of an omnipotent superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a moon hypothesis, but that only claims to make life on earth easier. The rest is just physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what you will, I think the moon is fairly important to life.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense. Molecular atmospheric oxygen is not required for life. First life were anerobic heterotrophs. Oxygen atmosphere came later due to autotrophs having evolved from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's your theory, anyway. Still, the vast array of life we find on Earth couldn't exist without molecular atmospheric oxygen, including much of the life in the ocean. I've read the various abiogenesis theories and they pretty much all conclude the motion of the early ocean was essential in the propagation of life.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your moving ocean, the ocean moves via corolis effect that is caused by earth's rotation & atmospheric weather patterns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly it's due to the gravitational forces of the moon and sun working on the ocean.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no one who makes this specific claim. When people like me claim the universe is teeming with life, we mean that there are a LOT of stars out there. We also do not mean human level life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well when we're talking about aliens who have supposedly visited our planet and such, or who MAY visit someday... sounds to me like you're talking about human level life or greater. Yes, I am aware there are lots of stars out there. It's unlikely that any of them have more than one planet in the proper zone for life to even exist. Most of the stars out there actually have a companion star in close proximity, which would probably dismiss the chances of life on their planets because of the heat from dual or triple suns. Then there are the million or so circumstances like the moon and tides and seasons and atmosphere and electromagnetic fields, etc.
> 
> Now , it would seem to me, a reasonable type person, that before you make the claim "the universe is teaming with life" you might want to actually FIND some life elsewhere first. You know... like a simple organism or something! Because, before you've done that, if you're running around making such a claim, you sound like an insane idiot who is practicing faith in a religious belief. Just saying!
Click to expand...


Your entire post is very problematic. At what point did you decide it was a valid point to claim that, "if we haven't already done something in the lab, then it cannot be done." That is absurd, and thank goodness no scientist feels that way.

Here's an exercise for you: Define, "life".


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.
Click to expand...

Believers have a huge problem with facts.

You almost never hear them talk about the fossil record. To recognize this simple fact requires that they question their faith. 

To the rest of the believers, they have only one thing left. To admit that evolution is true and that their last stronghold is original creation. Even then they have to parse Genesis as allegory and not a fact, ie the Bible is to be ignored as a work of fiction.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe atheists have considered it and found it to be bad evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists never consider anything they can't hold in their hands.
Click to expand...


Well, you just made that up. If you have to make up sweeping fantasies to make a point, you don't really have a point.


----------



## K9Buck

Not a "sweeping fantasy", just an observation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Not a "sweeping fantasy", just an observation.



Well, now it has gone past "fantasy" to "blatant lie", as it is not possible for you to have observed all atheists.  If you have to lie to make a point, you don't really have a point.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> During the time of God, believers thought the earth was the center of the universe.
> 
> Why didn't God correct them?


He sent them Galileo!


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a "sweeping fantasy", just an observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now it has gone past "fantasy" to "blatant lie", as it is not possible for you to have observed all atheists.  If you have to lie to make a point, you don't really have a point.
Click to expand...


Yea and you're a big fat meanie!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said it was easy. It took a billion years. Very difficult to do in the lab, but we have made remarkable progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neeuupp.... You've not made ANY progress because it's never been done.
> 
> You can show me all these sensationalistic stories but when you read them you understand they've still not created life from inorganic materials. It simply hasn't been done.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More proof that God didn't do it. The vastness of life is too complex for a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... You might be slightly underestimating the power of an omnipotent superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a moon hypothesis, but that only claims to make life on earth easier. The rest is just physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what you will, I think the moon is fairly important to life.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense. Molecular atmospheric oxygen is not required for life. First life were anerobic heterotrophs. Oxygen atmosphere came later due to autotrophs having evolved from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's your theory, anyway. Still, the vast array of life we find on Earth couldn't exist without molecular atmospheric oxygen, including much of the life in the ocean. I've read the various abiogenesis theories and they pretty much all conclude the motion of the early ocean was essential in the propagation of life.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your moving ocean, the ocean moves via corolis effect that is caused by earth's rotation & atmospheric weather patterns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly it's due to the gravitational forces of the moon and sun working on the ocean.
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no one who makes this specific claim. When people like me claim the universe is teeming with life, we mean that there are a LOT of stars out there. We also do not mean human level life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well when we're talking about aliens who have supposedly visited our planet and such, or who MAY visit someday... sounds to me like you're talking about human level life or greater. Yes, I am aware there are lots of stars out there. It's unlikely that any of them have more than one planet in the proper zone for life to even exist. Most of the stars out there actually have a companion star in close proximity, which would probably dismiss the chances of life on their planets because of the heat from dual or triple suns. Then there are the million or so circumstances like the moon and tides and seasons and atmosphere and electromagnetic fields, etc.
> 
> Now , it would seem to me, a reasonable type person, that before you make the claim "the universe is teaming with life" you might want to actually FIND some life elsewhere first. You know... like a simple organism or something! Because, before you've done that, if you're running around making such a claim, you sound like an insane idiot who is practicing faith in a religious belief. Just saying!
Click to expand...

Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.

Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars

List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...
Click to expand...

haha, yeah, i see how this works... you slide seamlessly from denigrating entire swaths of people to being the victim of some meanie on the internet.


----------



## Boss

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see. 

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person. 

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!" 

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means. 

Is he correct?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> haha, yeah, i see how this works... you slide seamlessly from denigrating entire swaths of people to being the victim of some meanie on the internet.
Click to expand...


I'm merely suggesting that you not let a little rhetoric get you all riled up.  None of us have all the answers.


----------



## K9Buck

Boss said:


> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?



Good analogy.  Here is another.  

Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto. What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions. If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?



What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset.  This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists.  But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset.  i'll pass on this con, thanks.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of God, believers thought the earth was the center of the universe.
> 
> Why didn't God correct them?
> 
> 
> 
> He sent them Galileo!
Click to expand...

AFTER the Bible and believers almost burned him at the stake.

Oh by the way, I do not consider the moon the moon. I consider earth/moon a binary planet, cuz the moon is waaay too big to be a moon. If we can reject Pluto as a planet for being too small, then we need to reject the moon as a moon for being too big.

You can use this in future arguments claiming this makes earth special.

I should warn you however, that if earth requires a moon to have not only life but intelligent life; then I will claim another case of your creator's failure (to need one with his magic).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good analogy.  Here is another.
> 
> Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto. What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions. If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.
Click to expand...

 Also a horrible analogy, in a similar way. You have zero objective evidence for the  existence of ANY gods, much less exactly one.  Yet we have objective evidence of the existence of the programmer.  It wouldn't matter if one of his created characters denied his existence or YOU did...these are actually the very same thing, and you would both be wrong, objectively.  And that could be demonstrated.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet we have objective evidence of the existence of the programmer.



The character in the video game would have ZERO evidence of a programmer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet we have objective evidence of the existence of the programmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The character in the video game would have ZERO evidence of a programmer.
Click to expand...


 You are merely arguing that the existence of a god or gods is possible, with which I agree. It *is* possible. It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension, and we are just ignorant of all the evidence of that fact. These are not strong arguments for the existence of gods or of unicorns.

What you have actually done is argue the basis for agnostic atheism, not for theism.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.
> 
> Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.
> 
> NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars
> 
> List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.



You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen. 

You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see. 

All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.
> 
> Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.
> 
> NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars
> 
> List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.
> 
> You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.
> 
> All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.
Click to expand...



But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...



And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.



What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?


----------



## K9Buck

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
Click to expand...


Our friend has a very narrow range of thinking.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?


The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see. 

Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.



Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion. 

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.


----------



## K9Buck

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?
> 
> 
> 
> The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.
> 
> Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.
Click to expand...


----------



## K9Buck

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
Click to expand...


The universe is no different than a computer program.  The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.
Click to expand...



No, I would have you believe that it is possible that no higher intelligence was requured either for the creation of the universe or the genesis of life. Big difference. Let's make a deal: You don't misrepresent me, and I won't misrepresent you. Mmmmkay?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is no different than a computer program.  The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.
Click to expand...


You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would have you believe that it is possible that no higher intelligence was requured either for the creation of the universe or the genesis of life. Big difference. Let's make a deal: You don't misrepresent me, and I won't misrepresent you. Mmmmkay?
Click to expand...


I think ANYTHING is possible but, for a variety of reason, I BELIEVE that a creator created the universe as well as us.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is no different than a computer program.  The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.
Click to expand...


There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments.  Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
Click to expand...


I said we, talking to the blind person, have the evidence.  That comment from me was to point out that the analogy, among its many other flaws as a rational for the existence of god, presupposes the objective existence of God.  But, in the end, the analogy only provides a rational that things may exist (not just gods, but ANYTHING, including unicorns in the 5th dimension, as the analogy is not specific to gods) for which we are entirely ignorant of the evidence.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.
> 
> Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.
> 
> NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars
> 
> List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.
> 
> You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.
> 
> All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.
Click to expand...

Estimates are 100 billion stars in just our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That's a LOT.

While we have only been actually searching for a few decades, it is more likely that they would find us first. We are, especially now, a VERY noisy planet. I believe interstellar travel will turn out to be impossible, and the speed of light cannot be broken. So communication is impossible in reality except for one way. If it was possible, we would have been visited. Of course, your God could have been those travelers (He did say our image = more than one) or all the Ancient Aliens show evidence.

I admit I could easily understand Pharaoh making a pyramid to  visitors, especially with their help.

or this...


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.
> 
> Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.
Click to expand...


He doesn't know what "see" means. It's a sense he has never experienced. You can explain it to him all you like, you can tell him that he is wrong and just because he can't see it doesn't mean it's not there... but he knows not what you're talking about. 

I used the analogy to illustrate a point. You are incapable of "seeing" what others see. For you, no matter what anyone says or any evidence offered that isn't within your range of physical senses, it simply doesn't matter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is no different than a computer program.  The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments.  Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence of design. To demonstrate, let me turn your own analogy back on you:

Take your same blind person.  Now, tell him that there is a pink,  sparkly dragon flying across the sky breathing rainbows. Now, the blind person cannot refute you, as he is not just ignorant of the evidence, but also incapable of examining the evidence.

so, just as people saw mental illness (or ANY illness, really) as the work of demons, you may see design where none exists.  Just as those people were incapable of examning the evidence of pathogens, it *may* be that your proclamation of the possibility of the existence of a designer is in error, as you *may* be currently ignorant of the insights or methods which would allow you to realize that no real design exists.

Just as you insist others admit the possibility that God exists and we simply are ignorant of the evidence, you must now also admit it is possible NO gods exist, and we are simply ignorant of the evidence and the methods of examining the evidence that would show us this.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I said we, talking to the blind person, have the evidence. That comment from me was to point out that the analogy, among its many other flaws as a rational for the existence of god, presupposes the objective existence of God. But, in the end, the analogy only provides a rational that things may exist (not just gods, but ANYTHING, including unicorns in the 5th dimension, as the analogy is not specific to gods) for which we are entirely ignorant of the evidence.



Only evidence to the blind person. Remember, he doesn't know what sight is. He doesn't understand what color means. Nothing you can present to him will be sufficient evidence of a beautiful rainbow or sunset because he doesn't have the sense required to understand it. He can't feel it, touch it. taste it or hear it. How do you prove to him it's real and not just your made up fantasy?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.
> 
> Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't know what "see" means. It's a sense he has never experienced. You can explain it to him all you like, you can tell him that he is wrong and just because he can't see it doesn't mean it's not there... but he knows not what you're talking about.
> 
> I used the analogy to illustrate a point. You are incapable of "seeing" what others see. For you, no matter what anyone says or any evidence offered that isn't within your range of physical senses, it simply doesn't matter.
Click to expand...



Again -- third time now -- your analogy merely demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, and we are simply ignorant of all the evidence of this.  I agree, that may be the case.  which puts us in perfect agreement, so far as the meaning and value of your analogy.  you have provided a rational basis for agnostic theism, NOT for theism.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good analogy.  Here is another.
> 
> Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto. What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions. If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Much better analogy indeed.

We can actually do that, but the cost of a personal supercomputer to play the game is a bit high still.

The problem with your analogy? We win and God loses. It is an imaginary world created by a physical being.


----------



## Political Junky

Marion Morrison said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide any eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Furthermore you're a man that wants to dress up like a girl, so..wtf?!
Click to expand...

Then surely you can prove God exists.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.
> 
> Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.
> 
> NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars
> 
> List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia
> 
> Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.
> 
> You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.
> 
> All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
Click to expand...

He also defines complex = human and doesn't include multicellular as complex.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Estimates are 100 billion stars in just our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That's a LOT.



Yep, it IS a lot... I admit that.

First, we have to dismiss about 75~80% of those stars right off the bat. Maybe more. They are either too big, too small, to binary, to hot or too cold. Simply not desirable as hosts for life-sustaining planets. Of the remaining stars, they're only going to have one "goldilocks" planet (if that). But then you delve into the specific conditions of these planets and there are thousands of things it will need to have sustainable life. Each time you calculate the odds it's like rolling the dice. How many times can you roll a 7 in a row? 

Again.. I'm not arguing it isn't possible... just not a given.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
Click to expand...

Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.

Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
Click to expand...

 Says you...somehow I suspect you have never attempted such a "number crunching" , and you just said that because it sounded good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is no different than a computer program.  The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments.  Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.
Click to expand...


There are no scholarly articles which provide evidence of design. Sorry, but you magical thinkers hamstrung yourselves the moment you introduced magic into the picture. By saying that things can happen irrespective of determinism or evidence, you have denied the idea that the truth of those ideas can be supported by evidence. Evidence reiles on determinism, and you have assumed determinism either does not exist or only exists to a point.


----------



## MarkDuffy

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would have you believe that it is possible that no higher intelligence was requured either for the creation of the universe or the genesis of life. Big difference. Let's make a deal: You don't misrepresent me, and I won't misrepresent you. Mmmmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think ANYTHING is possible but, for a variety of reason, I BELIEVE that a creator created the universe as well as us.
Click to expand...

How old is the earth and how do you explain the fossil record?


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again -- third time now -- your analogy merely demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, and we are simply ignorant of all the evidence of this. I agree, that may be the case. which puts us in perfect agreement, so far as the meaning and value of your analogy. you have provided a rational basis for agnostic theism, NOT for theism.



Uhmmmmm..... This might come as a shock to you but I don't think anyone is going to offer you proof that God exists here. If that is what you expected or that's why you're here, you're probably going to be disappointed. 

If all I ever accomplished in my analogy was to convince the blind man that it's *possible* a sunset or rainbow is beautiful, that would be a success for me. Especially if he were being an obnoxious dick splash, insulting me and mocking me for believing a fantasy and such.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....
> 
> Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.
> 
> Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.
> 
> He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.
> 
> All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...
> 
> But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"
> 
> Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.
> 
> Is he correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.
> 
> Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't know what "see" means. It's a sense he has never experienced. You can explain it to him all you like, you can tell him that he is wrong and just because he can't see it doesn't mean it's not there... but he knows not what you're talking about.
> 
> I used the analogy to illustrate a point. You are incapable of "seeing" what others see. For you, no matter what anyone says or any evidence offered that isn't within your range of physical senses, it simply doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I am very capable of understanding what others think they understand. We have had 2000 years of God evidence. I am not impressed, especially by the abandonment. As I have posted, bring back your God. Science wants an interview.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"This might come as a shock to you but I don't think anyone is going to offer you proof that God exists here."

That's not shocking to me at all, as I am of the ind that nobody could ever do such a thing.  Again, magical thinkers hamstrung themselves in regards to evidence the moment they introduced magic into the argument.

"If all I ever accomplished in my analogy was to convince the blind man that it's *possible* a sunset or rainbow is beautiful, that would be a success for me."

well, it appears we are in agreement on the meaning and usefulness of the analogy.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.
> 
> Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.
Click to expand...


I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

testimonies are anecdotal.  They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence.  you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all.  The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.

No.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> I am very capable of understanding what others think they understand. We have had 2000 years of God evidence. I am not impressed, especially by the abandonment. As I have posted, bring back your God. Science wants an interview.



Well the blind guy isn't impressed hearing about the beauty of the sunset either.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> testimonies are anecdotal.  They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence.  you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all.  The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.
> 
> No.



Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> testimonies are anecdotal.  They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence.  you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all.  The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.
Click to expand...


Your analogy fails in that the blind man would not be exhibiting "faith" to believe the sunset exists. The blind man would be exhibiting TRUST, built on evidence (e.g., the success of science in every other aspect of his life, the idea that a sunset is plausible and makes sense in light of everything else we know about the world, that is to say becomes yet another piece of mutually supportive evidence in a mountain of mutually supportive evidence). Else he would be just as likely to accept the assertion there is a pink dragon breathing rainbows in the sky as he would a sunset. But he isn't just as likely, as one belief is built on trust while the other would be built on faith.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.
> 
> When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is no different than a computer program.  The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments.  Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no scholarly articles which provide evidence of design. Sorry, but you magical thinkers hamstrung yourselves the moment you introduced magic into the picture. By saying that things can happen irrespective of determinism or evidence, you have denied the idea that the truth of those ideas can be supported by evidence. Evidence reiles on determinism, and you have assumed determinism either does not exist or only exists to a point.
Click to expand...

I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!

We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity). 

Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se."

That is specious... the second statement does not follow from the first. Scientists MUST rule out magic (when performing science), because determinism must be assumed.  If no cause-effect determinism, then there is no such thing as evidence. We would be unable to make any predictions about anything.  We would be unable to demonstrate any causal relationship.  there would be no physical laws, and no theories which yielded useful predictions.

Magic is magic, and science is science  they do not and cannot overlap.  they are opposites.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> testimonies are anecdotal.  They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence.  you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all.  The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails in that the blind man would not be exhibiting "faith" to believe the sunset exists. The blind man would be exhibiting TRUST, built on evidence (e.g., the success of science in every other aspect of his life, the idea that a sunset is plausible and makes sense in light of everything else we know about the world). Else he would be just as likely to accept the assertion there is a pink dragon breathing rainbows in the sky as he would a sunset. But he isn't just as likely, as one belief is built on trust while the other would be built on faith.
Click to expand...


What evidence? You've not presented any to a blind man. 

Trust and faith are synonyms.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "This might come as a shock to you but I don't think anyone is going to offer you proof that God exists here."
> 
> That's not shocking to me at all, as I am of the ind that nobody could ever do such a thing.  Again, magical thinkers hamstrung themselves in regards to evidence the moment they introduced magic into the argument.
> 
> "If all I ever accomplished in my analogy was to convince the blind man that it's *possible* a sunset or rainbow is beautiful, that would be a success for me."
> 
> well, it appears we are in agreement on the meaning and usefulness of the analogy.


The problem with magic, is were does it end? Believers, even Boss who loves to use the spirit cop out admits spirit is created with human birth, then never dies. That is a LOT of spirits that  have built up over the years.

Once you allow magic, science becomes meaningless & pointless.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.
> 
> Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and few of them actually agree. There are zillions of different visions of God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> testimonies are anecdotal.  They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence.  you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all.  The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails in that the blind man would not be exhibiting "faith" to believe the sunset exists. The blind man would be exhibiting TRUST, built on evidence (e.g., the success of science in every other aspect of his life, the idea that a sunset is plausible and makes sense in light of everything else we know about the world). Else he would be just as likely to accept the assertion there is a pink dragon breathing rainbows in the sky as he would a sunset. But he isn't just as likely, as one belief is built on trust while the other would be built on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence? You've not presented any to a blind man.
> 
> Trust and faith are synonyms.
Click to expand...


I described the evidence, to wit: the success of other scientific endeavors, which foments a trust in science.  Also, the fact that the description of our solar system fits into the mountain of mutually supportive evidence that is our scientific knowledge of the universe, much of which does not require sight to understand. 

i am not claiming these things are definitive proof that there is a sunset, I am saying they represent evidence that a person can bet on to trust something.  Again, there is a reason a blind person would be more likely to believe the existence of a sunset, as described by scientists, than to believe that a pink dragon were flying across the sky, breating rainbows.  that reason is trst vs. faith, pure and simple.

this unsettles you, because you are now forced to either admit that there is a stark, qualitative difference between trust and faith, or you must take the untenable position of equating them (despite your desire to do so, you will find it very difficult,i.e. impossible).

eventually, you will be forced to admit that faioth simply does not go on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge.  And, faith is NOT trust. i have TRUST my car will start tomorrow morning, not "faith".


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!
> 
> We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).
> 
> Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.



It's already been explained to you why the Creator doesn't require creation. It's not PHYSICAL.  Only physical things require creation. The word literally means "to bring into a state of being or existence." 

Quantum physics raises another interesting point. It mathematically predicts up to 11 dimensions. That's 7 more than we're capable of interacting with as humans. So if these dimensions exist, why can't God reside in one or more of them?


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.
> 
> Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and few of them actually agree. There are zillions of different visions of God.
Click to expand...


I imagine few people would agree on the most beautiful sunset they have ever seen.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I described the evidence, to wit: the success of other scientific endeavors, which foments a trust in science.



Totally useless to our blind man.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!
> 
> We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).
> 
> Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been explained to you why the Creator doesn't require creation. It's not PHYSICAL.  Only physical things require creation. The word literally means "to bring into a state of being or existence."
> 
> Quantum physics raises another interesting point. It mathematically predicts up to 11 dimensions. That's 7 more than we're capable of interacting with as humans. So if these dimensions exist, why can't God reside in one or more of them?
Click to expand...


He could! Unicorns and dragons could also exist in those dimensions.  You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than you are for the existence of unicorns and dragons.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And, faith is NOT trust. i have TRUST my car will start tomorrow morning, not "faith".



Trust and faith are synonyms... go look it up bruh!


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very capable of understanding what others think they understand. We have had 2000 years of God evidence. I am not impressed, especially by the abandonment. As I have posted, bring back your God. Science wants an interview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the blind guy isn't impressed hearing about the beauty of the sunset either.
Click to expand...

I'll bet not! Blind people that remain positive impress the hell outta me.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!
> 
> We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).
> 
> Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been explained to you why the Creator doesn't require creation. It's not PHYSICAL.  Only physical things require creation. The word literally means "to bring into a state of being or existence."
> 
> Quantum physics raises another interesting point. It mathematically predicts up to 11 dimensions. That's 7 more than we're capable of interacting with as humans. So if these dimensions exist, why can't God reside in one or more of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could! Unicorns and dragons could also exist in those dimensions.  You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than you are for the existence of unicorns and dragons.
Click to expand...


You're right... they could indeed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.
> 
> Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and few of them actually agree. There are zillions of different visions of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imagine few people would agree on the most beautiful sunset they have ever seen.
Click to expand...

 Trust and faith are not synonyms. 100% false. And, even if you were granted that siilly semantic point, I would just then use the term "evidence-based, best-odds choice" instead of "trust". So let's not waste time trying to sidestep other's points with semantic tripe. Let's stick to the ideas at hand.


----------



## Boss

> You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than...



Hold on now.... I'm gonna tell ya like I told the other shithead... if you came here expecting me to prove God exists to you, then you're in for a disappointment. I would hope that a grown ass man wouldn't be so silly as to think that was gonna happen. You didn't really think I was going to do that, did you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I described the evidence, to wit: the success of other scientific endeavors, which foments a trust in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally useless to our blind man.
Click to expand...

False, and what a ridiculous thing to say. Blind people can still be educated in the sciences and understand fully the useful predictions of scientific theories. You are saying ridiculous things, now.

Okay, let's try it as multiple choice. Would a blind man be:

1) less likely

2) equally likely

3) more likely

....to accept the idea of a pink dragon flying across the sky breathing rainbows as he would the existence of a sunset?

Come on man, just capitulate. Your point has been undermined.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se."
> 
> That is specious... the second statement does not follow from the first. Scientists MUST rule out magic (when performing science), because determinism must be assumed.  If no cause-effect determinism, then there is no such thing as evidence. We would be unable to make any predictions about anything.  We would be unable to demonstrate any causal relationship.  there would be no physical laws, and no theories which yielded useful predictions.
> 
> Magic is magic, and science is science  they do not and cannot overlap.  they are opposites.


The believers also apparently put constraints on their magic. Some, there is only one magician. Others, there are more magicians but they are less magic. Then magic can be taught to special entities (human or spirit). The Disciples were taught or given the magic to perform miracles. That is the most difficult to believe. Once you allow magic, then you must allow many magicians.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on now.... I'm gonna tell ya like I told the other shithead... if you came here expecting me to prove God exists to you, then you're in for a disappointment. I would hope that a grown ass man wouldn't be so silly as to think that was gonna happen. You didn't really think I was going to do that, did you?
Click to expand...


i don't expect that from you, as i know that it is impossible.  What i *am* expecting you to admit is that ALL of your arguments only argue one idea: that god may exist, because we cannot rule it out.  I agree 100%.  It is when you have overstepped this limit on your arguments that you and I have butted heads.

And I find it telling that you keep sidestepping my question about the blind man.  I think it sets a limit on the value of faith versus the limit of evidence-based trust, and you find that distasteful to admit.  Why?  You can accept all evidence-based knowledge for what it is... none of it rules out the existence of magical sky wizards, which would be the only method by which it would be any sort of refutation to any of your arguments.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Trust and faith are not synonyms. 100% false.



Well, I'm sorry but Merriam Webster doesn't agree with you.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False, and what a ridiculous thing to say. Blind people can still be educated in the sciences and understand fully the useful predictions of scientific theories. You are saying ridiculous things, now.



I didn't say they couldn't.  Again... what is your empirical evidence a blind man can accept? 
Come on... spit it out! Let's hear it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way.  It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms.  You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Again,  I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said.  this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> False, and what a ridiculous thing to say. Blind people can still be educated in the sciences and understand fully the useful predictions of scientific theories. You are saying ridiculous things, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they couldn't.  Again... what is your empirical evidence a blind man can accept?
> Come on... spit it out! Let's hear it?
Click to expand...



For the 6th time: the evidence the blind man can accept comes in the success of the scientific theories in predicting events around him.  So, when a blind man is told that there is a sunset in the sky, and he can reconcile this with all of the scientific knowledge we have on the universe, this is taken as evidence, ans the on-existence of the sunset would contradict all of our knowledge.  that is "proof", just as any proof by contradiction is proof.

The blind man also accepts that, when he drops a feather, it hits the ground, despite not seeing it do so.  in fact, this is another area where your analogy is very, very weak: we can ALL be considered "the blind man" at times.  When an artillery shell is shot up in the air on the other side of the world, and you have learned about gravity and ballistic paths and the shell's exit velocity in a science class... would you be more likely to believe that the shell will eventually fall, or that it will just continue in a straight line , forever, into space?  Remember, you're the blind man... never seen an artillery shell fired, not once...

You, OF COURSE, would agree that the shell would fall back to earth, because you take the success of our theories as evidence of the truth of their predictions.  period. There is NO argument to be had, there.  the blind man sitting next to you would make the EXACT same determination.


And AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, I ask you to answer why a blind man would obviously be more willing to accept the existence of a sunset than he would a pink dragon, breathing rainbows, flying across the sky.  By the way, it's very impolite to keep sidestepping my questions, after repeatedly asking questions which I directly answer. You don't seem like an impolite person... maybe there is another reason you are ignoring my question that is causing you to behave impolitely...


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> i don't expect that from you, as i know that it is impossible. What i *am* expecting you to admit is that ALL of your arguments only argue one idea: that god may exist, because we cannot rule it out. I agree 100%. It is when you have overstepped this limit on your arguments that you and I have butted heads.
> 
> And I find it telling that you keep sidestepping my question about the blind man. I think it sets a limit on the value of faith versus the limit of evidence-based trust, and you find that distasteful to admit. Why? You can accept all evidence-based knowledge for what it is... none of it rules out the existence of magical sky wizards, which would be the only method by which it would be any sort of refutation to any of your arguments.



You have yet to produce one tiny little shred of evidence the blind man can trust that sunsets are beautiful. NOTHING! I keep asking and you keep giving me malarkey. You keep referring to "evidence-based" when you mean "physical evidence" and there is no clear physical evidence of spiritual beings. The only evidence they have is spiritual evidence... there's plenty of that but you're blind to it.... just like the blind guy. 

You're demanding to be shown some kind of evidence that we can't show you... It's like the blind man demanding we prove sunsets are beautiful by sound, smell, hearing or touch. Can't be done! He can either trust and have faith or not.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on now.... I'm gonna tell ya like I told the other shithead... if you came here expecting me to prove God exists to you, then you're in for a disappointment. I would hope that a grown ass man wouldn't be so silly as to think that was gonna happen. You didn't really think I was going to do that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't expect that from you, as i know that it is impossible.  What i *am* expecting you to admit is that ALL of your arguments only argue one idea: that god may exist, because we cannot rule it out.  I agree 100%.  It is when you have overstepped this limit on your arguments that you and I have butted heads.
> 
> And I find it telling that you keep sidestepping my question about the blind man.  I think it sets a limit on the value of faith versus the limit of evidence-based trust, and you find that distasteful to admit.  Why?  You can accept all evidence-based knowledge for what it is... none of it rules out the existence of magical sky wizards, which would be the only method by which it would be any sort of refutation to any of your arguments.
Click to expand...

One of mah fav


Faith is blind, science is not!


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
> 
> Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.




Who believes in a God they don't have evidence for?


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.




In the context you are using it's a synonym.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"You have yet to produce one tiny little shred of evidence the blind man can trust that sunsets are beautiful."

Because I have no need of any kind to argue anything about that.  i was arguing that the blind man accepts the existence of a sunset, and why, and that doing so is NOT an example of "faith". Some people may think sunsets are ugly.  "Are sunsets beautiful?" is an objective question, not unlike, "Is Korn's music  beautiful?".  This line is irrelevant, and I will not continue it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context you are using it's a synonym.
Click to expand...


False, I specifically and clearly delineated the difference, as anyone can read for themselves in the thread.  Again, i already agreed to no longer trigger you by using the word 'trust", and will now bend over backwards to soothe your delicate sensibilities by using the term, "evidence-based determination".  As you might be able to tell by my snark, i find semantic arguments to be the bottom of the barrel, unworthy of respect or attention.  Argue with what i am clearly saying I mean, not with what meanings you are imposing on my statements.  That is some seriously weak sauce and amounts to nothing but rigging the game for yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
> 
> Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who believes in a God they don't have evidence for?
Click to expand...

You do, i think.  So does everyone else who believes in gods.  That's why this belief is called "faith".


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context you are using it's a synonym.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, I specifically and clearly delineated the difference, as anyone can read for themselves in the thread.  Again, i already agreed to no longer trigger you by using the word 'trust", and will now bend over backwards to soothe your delicate sensibilities by using the term, "evidence-based determination".  As you might be able to tell by my snark, i find semantic arguments to be the bottom of the barrel, unworthy of respect or attention.  Argue with what i am clearly saying I mean, not with what meanings you are imposing on my statements.  That is some seriously weak sauce and amounts to nothing but rigging the game for yourself.
Click to expand...


No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them. 

The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets. 

The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
> 
> Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who believes in a God they don't have evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do, i think.  So does everyone else who believes in gods.  That's why this belief is called "faith".
Click to expand...


People who I know who believe in God can talk to you for hours about the spiritual evidence they have for the God they believe in. 

I'm a person who has very little "FAITH" in things I can't find evidence for. That's why I don't believe in the white-bearded deity sitting on a cloud with a Charlton Heston voice, casting his judgement down from the heavens. If I didn't have very strong evidence of a  Spiritual Energy which I connect with daily, I could never believe in it. But you see... I DO have that evidence so it's not really "FAITH" for me.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
> 
> Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who believes in a God they don't have evidence for?
Click to expand...

Every believer 

Where's my prize?


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> For the 6th time: the evidence the blind man can accept comes in the success of the scientific theories in predicting events around him. So, when a blind man is told that there is a sunset in the sky, and he can reconcile this with all of the scientific knowledge we have on the universe, this is taken as evidence, ans the on-existence of the sunset would contradict all of our knowledge. that is "proof", just as any proof by contradiction is proof.
> 
> The blind man also accepts that, when he drops a feather, it hits the ground, despite not seeing it do so. in fact, this is another area where your analogy is very, very weak: we can ALL be considered "the blind man" at times. When an artillery shell is shot up in the air on the other side of the world, and you have learned about gravity and ballistic paths and the shell's exit velocity in a science class... would you be more likely to believe that the shell will eventually fall, or that it will just continue in a straight line , forever, into space? Remember, you're the blind man... never seen an artillery shell fired, not once...
> 
> You, OF COURSE, would agree that the shell would fall back to earth, because you take the success of our theories as evidence of the truth of their predictions. period. There is NO argument to be had, there. the blind man sitting next to you would make the EXACT same determination.
> 
> 
> And AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, I ask you to answer why a blind man would obviously be more willing to accept the existence of a sunset than he would a pink dragon, breathing rainbows, flying across the sky. By the way, it's very impolite to keep sidestepping my questions, after repeatedly asking questions which I directly answer. You don't seem like an impolite person... maybe there is another reason you are ignoring my question that is causing you to behave impolitely...



But you're trying to change the parameters of my analogy to fit your narrative. I never said the blind man didn't believe the sun sets. You're absolutely correct that he could just as soon be asked to believe in pink dragons breathing rainbows... wouldn't mean anything to him because he cannot see. What is pink? What is a rainbow? Asking him to accept that sunsets are beautiful is the same thing... he has nothing to base that belief on.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
> 
> Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who believes in a God they don't have evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every believer
> 
> Where's my prize?
Click to expand...


Again, you are *wrong*.... must be hard to get used to?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BULLDOG said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did God come from?
Click to expand...



'... And on the first day, man created god(s)'.

Funny thing is, there were a lot of of gods before somebody invented the christian god. 

I always wonder how christians can defend their god as the one true god when they stole him from other, older religions.

[emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Currently, there are about 4000 actively worshipped gods. 

That's a lot of dogma to choose from!

[emoji57]




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context you are using it's a synonym.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, I specifically and clearly delineated the difference, as anyone can read for themselves in the thread.  Again, i already agreed to no longer trigger you by using the word 'trust", and will now bend over backwards to soothe your delicate sensibilities by using the term, "evidence-based determination".  As you might be able to tell by my snark, i find semantic arguments to be the bottom of the barrel, unworthy of respect or attention.  Argue with what i am clearly saying I mean, not with what meanings you are imposing on my statements.  That is some seriously weak sauce and amounts to nothing but rigging the game for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.
> 
> The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.
> 
> The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.
Click to expand...


I understand that someone can have faith that a sunset is beautiful. I don't disagree. I think we are talking past each other.

And, just to get it out there again, you have made the argument that gods are a possibility, because it is possible that we are completely ignorant of the evidence. I don't disagree with that, either.

Where we have diverged is what I see as a false equivalence you are slowly trying to construct, and my reaponse to it. That false equivalence being: evidence-based determinations are no different thean faith, as it is all faith.


----------



## JoeMoma

This discussion kind of reminds me of Flatland, which was a book about shapes that lived in a two dimensional universe that could not comprehend three dimensions.  I never read the book, but I've seen an animated movie based on it.

There is so much that we humans are just beginning to understand and some things that we may never really understand due the limitations of our existence.

How did the existence of mass and energy come about?  Was there ever a time mass and energy didn't exist or has it always existed?  The second law of thermodynamics would suggest that the universe would eventually wind down.  How did it get wound up to begin with?

We might simply be living in a simulation that someone created in an even more complex universe.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context you are using it's a synonym.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, I specifically and clearly delineated the difference, as anyone can read for themselves in the thread.  Again, i already agreed to no longer trigger you by using the word 'trust", and will now bend over backwards to soothe your delicate sensibilities by using the term, "evidence-based determination".  As you might be able to tell by my snark, i find semantic arguments to be the bottom of the barrel, unworthy of respect or attention.  Argue with what i am clearly saying I mean, not with what meanings you are imposing on my statements.  That is some seriously weak sauce and amounts to nothing but rigging the game for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.
> 
> The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.
> 
> The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that someone can have faith that a sunset is beautiful. I don't disagree. I think we are talking past each other.
> 
> And, just to get it out there again, you have made the argument that gods are a possibility, because it is possible that we are completely ignorant of the evidence. I don't disagree with that, either.
> 
> Where we have diverged is what I see as a false equivalence you are slowly trying to construct, and my reaponse to it. That false equivalence being: evidence-based determinations are no different thean faith, as it is all faith.
Click to expand...


And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. The magnanimous beauty of the contrasting hues in a sunset is not "evidence" to someone who doesn't comprehend sight. That doesn't in any way render the sunset less beautiful. 

There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self. Man's own history proves this. It's incontrovertible. The fact that you find no value in the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Likewise, many can realize evidence you don't see and you're like the blind man saying, "How can I believe the sunset is beautiful if I can't hear it?" No one will ever be able to give you the evidence you require to believe. If there ever is (and there could be) physical evidence of the spiritual, it becomes physical by nature. If it can be explained physically, it's no longer spiritual.


----------



## Boss

JoeMoma said:


> This discussion kind of reminds me of Flatland, which was a book about shapes that lived in a two dimensional universe that could not comprehend three dimensions.  I never read the book, but I've seen an animated movie based on it.
> 
> There is so much that we humans are just beginning to understand and some things that we may never really understand due the limitations of our existence.
> 
> How did the existence of mass and energy come about?  Was there ever a time mass and energy didn't exist or has it always existed?  The second law of thermodynamics would suggest that the universe would eventually wind down.  How did it get wound up to begin with?
> 
> We might simply be living in a simulation that someone created in an even more complex universe.



Well that's the thing. I think we can all agree on mathematics. The calculations on quantum mechanics says we have 7 more dimensions that we're not even aware of.  Some theoretical physicists say there could be completely different reality happening in the very same space and time we occupy. To me... this could explain spiritualism and a whole lot more. Perhaps the phenomenon we experience as ghosts or aliens are things which briefly cross over into our dimensions?


----------



## task0778

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context you are using it's a synonym.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, I specifically and clearly delineated the difference, as anyone can read for themselves in the thread.  Again, i already agreed to no longer trigger you by using the word 'trust", and will now bend over backwards to soothe your delicate sensibilities by using the term, "evidence-based determination".  As you might be able to tell by my snark, i find semantic arguments to be the bottom of the barrel, unworthy of respect or attention.  Argue with what i am clearly saying I mean, not with what meanings you are imposing on my statements.  That is some seriously weak sauce and amounts to nothing but rigging the game for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.
> 
> The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.
> 
> The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that someone can have faith that a sunset is beautiful. I don't disagree. I think we are talking past each other.
> 
> And, just to get it out there again, you have made the argument that gods are a possibility, because it is possible that we are completely ignorant of the evidence. I don't disagree with that, either.
> 
> Where we have diverged is what I see as a false equivalence you are slowly trying to construct, and my reaponse to it. That false equivalence being: evidence-based determinations are no different thean faith, as it is all faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. The magnanimous beauty of the contrasting hues in a sunset is not "evidence" to someone who doesn't comprehend sight. That doesn't in any way render the sunset less beautiful.
> 
> There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self. Man's own history proves this. It's incontrovertible. The fact that you find no value in the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Likewise, many can realize evidence you don't see and you're like the blind man saying, "How can I believe the sunset is beautiful if I can't hear it?" No one will ever be able to give you the evidence you require to believe. *If there ever is (and there could be) physical evidence of the spiritual, it becomes physical by nature. If it can be explained physically, it's no longer spiritual*.
Click to expand...


Well, I dunno.   Consider that there are literally thousands of cases where a person can relate information about a place she/he's never been and people she/he's never met because her/is soul has been reincarnated from a past life to the current one.   Check this out:  there's a 6 year old kid who under hypnosis reveals that he was a Navy pilot in WWII and was KIA in the Pacific theater.   This kid knows the names and numbers of the plane he flew and the ship he was on and many other details relative to that prior life.   Does that count as physical evidence?   There are tape recordings of people under hypnosis describing places and things they never been to and speaking in languages that they do not know when conscious, even a dead language that nobody speaks today.   Sounds like physical evidence of a spiritual soul to me.  

Bunk you say?   Okay by me, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.   BUT I do think there is quite a lot we do not yet know about what reality is in total.   There's a lot of stories out there about near death experiences and psychics that can receive images from people who have passed away who are trying to communicate with the living.   Is it all BS?   Dunno.   Food for thought:  there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.   (Hamlet)

So - to the point about the existence of God.   The existence of an immortal spiritual soul would seem to indicate the existence of some higher power capable of creating such.   It would be kinda hard for science to explain that away, and deny it's existence.   Again, okay by me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. "

yes, I know. I just said so in my last post. Thank you for addressing the crux of the matter, instead of sidestepping it.

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.  Again, this is the false equivalence you are trying to construct, and it is nonsensical.  You could not possibly, pragmatically or philosophically, live this way.

And again, I take you back to my question:

Why is a blind man more likely to believe the sunset exists than a pink dragon overhead exists?  Answer me that.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. "
> 
> yes, I know. I just said so in my last post. Thank you for addressing the crux of the matter, instead of sidestepping it.
> 
> Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.  Again, this is the false equivalence you are trying to construct, and it is nonsensical.  You could not possibly, pragmatically or philosophically, live this way.
> 
> And again, I take you back to my question:
> 
> Why is a blind man more likely to believe the sunset exists than a pink dragon overhead exists?  Answer me that.



Well my argument was not that the blind man didn't believe the sun physically sets. He doesn't accept there is beauty in a sunset because his senses prohibit him from relating to it.  You may as well be trying to convince him a pink dragon exists overhead, it's the same thing... he has no concept of what pink is or a dragon for that matter. He's never seen one.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.




Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways. 

I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently. 

So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.


----------



## RWS

Marion Morrison said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence to the contrary=-?
> 
> Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened.  We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth.  But we know they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The believers also need to explain why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible.
> 
> It is obvious that man made God and not God made man, or God would know this simple fact.
> 
> God knows nothing man didn't know. We know why God was so stupid, he is made-made fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're claiming you know everything that God knows, correct?
> 
> Nah, somehow, I'm of the opinion you're pretty much derp, sorry.
Click to expand...


Another 6000-year Earther... We were not created 6000 years ago. 6000 years ago is when the Sumerians invented writing and started writing stuff down. 

Your religion has taken their writings and changed it, over thousands of years, to make you believe that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago. That was simply the beginning of Sumerian civilization. And the beginning of writing, science, math, and a whole boatload of things. 

So 6000 years ago, recorded history began. But a whole lot of shit happened for billions of years before that.


----------



## RWS

You all have to eventually let go of your blind beliefs and dedication to something you were born into. Very, very few of you got to choose your religion. It was chosen for you based on your parents, and then societal influence kept you on that path. The reason for societal influence on you and your parents is that your ancestors were conquered by the religion you adhere to. And they faced death and torture and slavery, if they didn't adhere. So now here you are, in present-day, where a lot of those evils have been swept away by the sands of time and you think you believe in a Santa Claus religion of goodness and sweetness and (cough) love. But the horrors of your religion did exist, and still do inside you today, once ruffled up enough. And once called upon, you will revert to the blood lust that is necessary to keep your religion going.

On another angle, there's a reason nobody in NK rises up against Kim Jong-un. They are either totally brainwashed, or fear for their lives or their family's lives. So they regard him as a "God" and follow him like a religion. And think, or forced to think, that he's the greatest thing on Earth. Exactly what was done to our ancestors that ended up being forced to follow religions based on the OT, and committing some of the worst crimes that we know about based on their orders from their leaders. 

That's what religion has done to believers, whether it be spiritual or political. Just deny everything that happens in the world, and destroy everything to promote your goal. Be ignorant of everything else, even to the point where you think things like the Earth is really around 6000 years old, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss, you should love this!

Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie. 

Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.

Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply? 

You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.


----------



## BULLDOG

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss, you should love this!
> 
> Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie.
> 
> Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.
> 
> Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
> 
> So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply?
> 
> You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.


Rare Earth? They were great back in 70


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:
			
		

> There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self...





Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> *Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.*
> 
> I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.
> 
> So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.
Click to expand...

Science deals in, and has, Hard Evidence. God/s have None.
Period.
This is not "subjective".

6000 year old earth/YEC is False.
Big Bang has lots of Evidence.
Evolution has lots of/overwhelming Evidence.
God has none.
That's why belief in god/s is called "Faith"/belief without Evidence.

Your blind man/sunset analogy ridiculous ambiguation/chicanery/lying-for-Jesus.
Blind men don't deny Sunsets, or Red Traffic Lights, they just have a handicap that doesn't allow them to see them.

You can't carry on this nonsense for 10 pages with me.
+


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss, you should love this!
> 
> Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie.
> 
> Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.
> 
> Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
> 
> So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply?
> 
> You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.



I don't believe there is anything "magical" about God or His creation. You are pondering questions with the mind of an intellectually-advanced monkey. No disrespect, but you're no match for God. You weren't blessed with an incredible mind so that you could sit around second guessing God and coming up with a better plan. I realize things God has done, doesn't make sense to you but look... take a copy of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity by your local zoo and give it to a monkey and see what they make of it? Chances are, they'll just wipe their ass with it and look at you like... Where's my banana? 

One of the things I think is hard to grasp for Atheists when it comes to God is that God doesn't reside in a physical reality and isn't confined by space and time. While our universe seems large to us, the dimensions are meaningless to God. While it seems far away to the nearest star, it means nothing to God. We look at 14.5 billion years as a very long time but it's nothing to God.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.*
> 
> I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.
> 
> So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science deals in, and has, Hard Evidence. God/s have None.
> Period.
> This is not "subjective".
> 
> 6000 year old earth/YEC is False.
> Big Bang has lots of Evidence.
> Evolution has lots of/overwhelming Evidence.
> God has none.
> That's why belief in god/s is called "Faith"/belief without Evidence.
> 
> Your blind man/sunset analogy ridiculous ambiguation/chicanery/lying-for-Jesus.
> Blind men don't deny Sunsets, or Red Traffic Lights, they just have a handicap that doesn't allow them to see them.
> 
> You can't carry on this nonsense for 10 pages with me.
> +
Click to expand...


Nope... Sorry... there is PLENTY of evidence for God. You refuse to accept the evidence as evidence. The only evidence you will accept is physical evidence and God isn't physical. If we could physically prove God, it would be physical. Therefore, the evidence for God is spiritual and you will not accept spiritual evidence. That doesn't negate the evidence. 

The Big Bang is currently in question by major theoretical physicists and astrophysicists including Stephen Hawking. Evolution doesn't explain origin. And I'm sorry to inform you but "Faith" is belief without PROOF.... not evidence. 

The blind man/sunset analogy is PERFECT because it's driving you nuts and you can't find a coherent way to contradict it. Therefore, you are on a mission to destroy it by ridicule and denunciation and you hope that no one notices you couldn't counter my argument in a meaningful way. And I don't need 10 pages with you... I took care of your punk ass in three paragraphs while scratching my balls and typing one handed.


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:


> Nope... Sorry... there is PLENTY of evidence for God. You refuse to accept the evidence as evidence. The only evidence you will accept is physical evidence and God isn't physical. If we could physically prove God, it would be physical. Therefore, the evidence for God is spiritual and you will not accept spiritual evidence. That doesn't negate the evidence.


False.
Whatever 'evidence' you delude for god/dog, someone else has FAITH in a DIFFERENT and contradictory god/dog.
NOT so in Science, where results are discernible/duplicatable independly worldwide.



			
				boss said:
			
		

> The Big Bang is currently in question by major theoretical physicists and astrophysicists including Stephen Hawking. Evolution doesn't explain origin. And I'm sorry to inform you but "Faith" is belief without PROOF.... not evidence.


There is plenty of Hard evdience for Big Bang.
Evolution doesn't claim to solve origin. Bad try.
'God/s' shrinks every year.
*Tens of thousands of gods on the ash heap because your equally logic-challenged progenitors thought that Fire, Rain, Fertility, etc, etc. were "evidence of god".*



			
				boss said:
			
		

> The blind man/sunset analogy is PERFECT because it's driving you nuts and you can't find a coherent way to contradict it. Therefore, you are on a mission to destroy it by ridicule and denunciation and you hope that no one notices you couldn't counter my argument in a meaningful way. And I don't need 10 pages with you... I took care of your punk ass in three paragraphs while scratching my balls and typing one handed.


I already did bust the analogy.
Blind men DO acknowledge things they can't see: like Red Traffic Lights.
Not acknowledging real/hard/natural evidence is dangerous and deluded.
Your analogy was Disingenuous or blindingly obtuse.
`


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... Sorry... there is PLENTY of evidence for God. You refuse to accept the evidence as evidence. The only evidence you will accept is physical evidence and God isn't physical. If we could physically prove God, it would be physical. Therefore, the evidence for God is spiritual and you will not accept spiritual evidence. That doesn't negate the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> Whatever 'evidence' you delude you have for god/dog, someone else has FAITH in a DIFFERENT and contradictory god/dog.
> NOT so in Science, where results are discernible/duplicatable independly worldwide.
Click to expand...


First of all, "Science" is short for "Physical Science". Science only pertains to that which is physical. It has no power to evaluate or examine things outside the physical. The overwhelming evidence for God is not physical, it's spiritual. And yes, people do have faiths in different kinds of Gods but scientists have different theories on the same subject all the time. It's not an unusual characteristic for humans to disagree. As a matter of fact, there are 127 various theories surrounding abiogenesis. Only a small handful are considered "prevailing" theory but science is still FAR from conclusive. In fact, drawing conclusions is actually the antithesis of science and what science does. Once you've drawn conclusion on anything, you have stopped practicing science and have began practicing faith in your conclusions. 

Finally, I resoundingly reject your "Science vs. God" proposition because God created every parameter and variable which enables science to function. Science exists because God allows it to. 



> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is currently in question by major theoretical physicists and astrophysicists including Stephen Hawking. Evolution doesn't explain origin. And I'm sorry to inform you but "Faith" is belief without PROOF.... not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of Hard evdience for Big Bang.
> Evolution doesn't claim to solve origin. Dishonest reply.
> 'God/s' shrinks every year.
> *Tens of thousands of gods on the ash heap because your equally logic-challenged progenitors thought that Fire, Rain, Fertility, etc, etc. were "evidence of god".*
Click to expand...

*
*
And I can raise the exact same complaint of Science. The entire history of Science is one theory being replaced by another, over and over. As I said (and you couldn't contradict) even Stephen Hawking is now questioning if there was ever a "Big Bang" to start the universe. You can cling to your faith in a Big Bang and disagree but that's a fact. 

I know evolution doesn't claim to explain origin. That's why I often wonder why so many of you seem to want to present it as some sort of refuting evidence of creation. Evolution is simply God's tool for expanding life forms. It doesn't refute God, its actually a testament to the wonder of God. The same can be said for DNA and the human genome. Which, incidentally, was first mapped by a devout Christian believer in God. And many fail to realize, arguably the greatest scientific mind in history (Isaac Newton) spent the later part of his life basically writing what  would become the doctrine of the Protestant Church.  



> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The blind man/sunset analogy is PERFECT because it's driving you nuts and you can't find a coherent way to contradict it. Therefore, you are on a mission to destroy it by ridicule and denunciation and you hope that no one notices you couldn't counter my argument in a meaningful way. And I don't need 10 pages with you... I took care of your punk ass in three paragraphs while scratching my balls and typing one handed.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did bust the analogy.
> Blind men DO acknowledge things they can't see: like Red Traffic Lights.
> Traffic Lights are hard evidence.
> Your analogy was Disingenuous or blindingly stupid.
> `
Click to expand...


Again, you are not "busting" my analogy. I gave an example of a man who doesn't accept that sunsets have beauty because he is unable to see beauty. I challenged you to present some evidence to this man which he could accept, that sunsets are indeed beautiful. Not that sunsets exist... he understands physics. He realizes the earth rotates and the sun appears to set and rise. He may even understand dust and angles of the atmosphere create a visual effect. What he doesn't understand is beauty in something seen because he has no capability to understand sight or what it is like. It's a sense he doesn't have, therefore, he cannot relate to it. 

In much the same way as our blind man, you lack spiritual sight. You can't see it or relate to it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. You simply lack the "sense" to comprehend it. You can explain to the blind man that sunsets are beautiful but you may as well be talking about pink dragons in the sky from his perspective.


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:


> ...
> 
> *In much the same way as our blind man, you lack spiritual sight. You can't see it or relate to it. That doesn't mean it isn't there.*You simply lack the "sense" to comprehend it. You can explain to the blind man that sunsets are beautiful but you may as well be talking about pink dragons in the sky from his perspective.


:^)
No, you lack "spiritual" insight.
If you had any, you'd realize I'm God and I created this message board and everything else.

See how easy "spirtual insight" is? Anyone can claim anything with whatever they want to BS is "evidence."
NOT so with science/reality/real evidence.
I already explained/Busted that BS in my last.
gameover III
`


----------



## mamooth

MarkDuffy said:


> Oh by the way, I do not consider the moon the moon. I consider earth/moon a binary planet, cuz the moon is waaay too big to be a moon. If we can reject Pluto as a planet for being too small, then we need to reject the moon as a moon for being too big.



Technically, no.

To be considered a double planet system, the common center of mass of the system must be located in empty space between the two bodies.

However, the common center of mass of the earth-moon system is below the surface of the earth.

Hence, the moon is a moon, and not a planet itself. The moon would need about 40% more mass to be classified as a planet.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.



But we have seen. Some of us, like me, have felt what you felt in the past. We thought we felt God, but we know now it was just our minds deluding ourselves. 

Moreover, I can now make myself feel 'spiritual' any time I want, on any topic I want. As you're more limited in that regard, that means I'm clearly much more spiritually mature than you are. Because I say so. You know, the same standard you use.

Everyone has warm fuzzy feelings about something. You're pretending your warm fuzzies are superior to ours, without any evidence backing that up. That is, you're giveing us a special pleading fallacy. The observable evidence says your warm fuzzies aren't anything special. They haven't made you smarter, or more moral, and they have made you arrogant and evasive.

If your warm fuzzies came from an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, they would have inspired you in a positive manner. As they've inspired you the opposite way, they must not have come from such a deity.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *In much the same way as our blind man, you lack spiritual sight. You can't see it or relate to it. That doesn't mean it isn't there.*You simply lack the "sense" to comprehend it. You can explain to the blind man that sunsets are beautiful but you may as well be talking about pink dragons in the sky from his perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> :^)
> No, you lack "spiritual" insight.
> If you had any, you'd realize I'm God and I created this message board and everything else.
> 
> See how easy "spirtual insight" is? Anyone can claim anything with whatever they want to BS is "evidence."
> NOT so with science/reality/real evidence.
> I already explained/Busted that BS in my last.
> gameover III
> `
Click to expand...


The thing is, I have zero faith that you are God and created this message board and everything else. And yes, you DO claim a lot of bullshit you can't support. I'm trying hard to overlook that. 

You speak of "real evidence" as if evidence only you consider valid is real. Sorry... you don't get to decide that for me. What you are trying to say, in your most primitive neanderthal way, is that you find no physical evidence for a spiritual being. I would contend this concludes that spiritual beings are not physical. I don't think you'll win a Nobel Prize with that revelation. 

And no... you've still not explained/busted anything. You keep squawking incoherent nonsense and renouncing everything you disagree with but that doesn't equate with winning an argument. It's not surprising you want to proclaim the game over. You're being beaten down so badly in a philosophical sense that it must be embarrassing for you. I would suggest you respond by squawking some more nonsense, toss out a few more insults and then proclaim yourself victorious so that you can move on to a topic you are better prepared to debate. That is your best option at this point.


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we have seen. Some of us, like me, have felt what you felt in the past. We thought we felt God, but we know now it was just our minds deluding ourselves.
> 
> Moreover, I can now make myself feel 'spiritual' any time I want, on any topic I want. As you're more limited in that regard, that means I'm clearly much more spiritually mature than you are. Because I say so. You know, the same standard you use.
> 
> Everyone has warm fuzzy feelings about something. You're pretending your warm fuzzies are superior to ours, without any evidence backing that up. That is, you're giveing us a special pleading fallacy. The observable evidence says your warm fuzzies aren't anything special. They haven't made you smarter, or more moral, and they have made you arrogant and evasive.
> 
> If your warm fuzzies came from an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, they would have inspired you in a positive manner. As they've inspired you the opposite way, they must not have come from such a deity.
Click to expand...


I;'ve never said a thing about an "omnibenevolent" deity. Benevolence is a human attribute. The God I believe in doesn't have human characteristics because God doesn't need them. We need them and we need to believe in a God who has them because we can relate to that. 

What I experience is more than a "warm fuzzy" as you call it. I have an intense connection to a spiritual energy force which is constantly producing a real and tangible benefit for me as a physical being. I'm not going to give that up because some yahoo on a message board made fun of it and said it wasn't real. 

If you want to say this is all in my head, that's fine but I don't believe that. There have been too many instances where my spiritual guidance has led me in the opposite direction of what was in my head at the time. I've made decisions that I would've never considered without some spiritual guidance and it ended up being for the best. Subsequently, I used to always test this spiritual guidance by going with my head and it always turned out badly for me. Now, I don't expect this to mean a thing to you and I'm not trying to "convert" you. I'm just relating my own personal experience so you understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:


> The thing is, I have zero faith that you are God and created this message board and everything else.


So spirituality is based on YOUR Beliefs.
You probably don't beleive in Santa Maria or Voodoo either you Hypocrite.

You're all arrogant idiots who don't see that at least 75% of the planet is wrong, even if one superstition stepped in it.



			
				boss said:
			
		

> *and yes, you DO claim a lot of bullshit you can't support. I'm trying hard to overlook that.*


Really?
Please cite this "alot of BS"
You Lying POS.



			
				boss said:
			
		

> You speak of "real evidence" as if evidence only you consider valid is real. Sorry... you don't get to decide that for me. What you are trying to say, in your most primitive neanderthal way, is that you find no physical evidence for a spiritual being. I would contend this concludes that spiritual beings are not physical. I don't think you'll win a Nobel Prize with that revelation.


What you're saying is you CANNOT demonstrate any real evidence for your claim/god/dog.



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> And no... you've still not explained/busted anything. You keep squawking incoherent nonsense and renouncing everything you disagree with but that doesn't equate with winning an argument. It's not surprising you want to proclaim the game over. .


And you have yet show ANY evidence of your god, or anyone else's.
You know, the people who believe in a diffrent and Contradictory god than you do.
Two oppoosing 'spirits'.

You're full of **** , you 12 IQ clown,
You have posted No evidence, because even you know it's a 'Nothing Burger'.
`


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> So spirituality is based on YOUR Beliefs.
> You probably don't beleive in Santa Maria or Voodoo either you Hypocrite.
> 
> You're all arrogant idiots who don't see that at least 75% of the planet is wrong, even if one superstition stepped in it.



Well MY spirituality is based on MY beliefs, I can't speak for the perception of others. I do know that the human species has experienced some kind of spiritual belief for as long as humans have been civilized. That is proven through archeological discovery and not disputable. I don't know about voodoo and Santa Maria so I can't comment. 

And your number is way off. It's more like 95% of the planet who believe in something as opposed to 5% who profess Nihilism. Also, that number has not diminished over time, it has remained relatively consistent for thousands and thousands of years, even before there were organized religions. Only about one in twenty humans believe in nothing.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> And you have yet show ANY evidence of your god, or anyone else's.



And if I am ever able to show you physical proof of God then God becomes physical and negates any concept of a spiritual God. Again-- if that is what you are expecting, you'll be disappointed here. Apparently, you believe it makes you appear smart to cling to an argument you can never lose... that there is no physical proof of God. I can assure you, this doesn't make you appear smart at all. It really makes you look closed-minded and shallow. Most intellectual people will at least challenge themselves by engaging in arguments where there can be an opposing opinion. You are obviously too pathetically weak minded to do that and you continue to prove what an incurious dullard you are.


----------



## Tankbda

I find these questions and answers fascinating. I have been watching debates between atheist and theist and I can honestly say they have been educational to me in the way that BOTH make very reasonable arguments about how the universe began.

As an interested party I can say that for me I wont fall on either side of the argument but I would label myself as an ANTI- THEIST as I would say Christopher Hitchens described himself.

In this for me, it is as simple as this. How can I respect ANY God who sees all and chooses to allow such atrocities’ to occur in the world? What king of God is this? If there is a GOD he is not a very good GOD at all.

I get closer to believing we are living in a world like the SIMS game and we are watched simply by players who have no real interest in how things go or saving us .  After all it is just a game.



Lastly I sometimes think God and his friend Satan have this whole experiment as part of a bet. One says I bet I can make them do this and the other says no way. We could be a BET.



I would personally hope the Big bang is the beginning of the universe  because if it is not then WOW , what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.


----------



## Boss

Tankbda said:


> What king of God is this?



I often hear this point being made by non-believers but it presupposes that our own physical existence and reality is the best. That's the flaw in that mentality. Why did the baby die of cancer? Well maybe the baby went on to a better plane of existence and reality than our own? You see, we don't know what God knows so we can't second guess God's actions. We can only have faith that it's God's will and God's plan.


----------



## Divine Wind

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?


God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.  There is not evidence of anything outside the Natural Universe nor is there any evidence of how the Universe came to be.  There is plenty of solid evidence of the Big Bang, evolution and everything after the Big Bang, but not the "why?".


----------



## Boss

Tankbda said:


> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.



Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes. 

IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.
> 
> So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.
Click to expand...



In an evidence-based determination, you CAN have it both ways, in this way:

  You can make a prediction, based on the evidence, and sometimes subjectivity enters the fray.  (That's one of the reasons science repeats things over and over and over, to eliminate this subjectivity). For instance, you may consider the odds "not high enough" that your 1978 Datsun will start before the big meeting tomorrow, but make the subjective choice that those odds just aren't good enough and rent a car. what is important is that you don't consider them to be strong, no matter the number, and you have evidence to think this.  what are the odds you are right that it would not start?  Who knows. But you still had reason to believe it MIGHT not, and more so than a 2017 car right off the lot. where is the faith in that?  There isn't any.  yet, there is both an evidence-based determination (based on objective evidence), AND there is subjectivity.


And... MOST important of all ... the person who made this evidence-based determination knows he may have been wrong.  Again, where's the faith?  there isn't any, yet there is subjectivity.

Now, compare this to faith.  in faith, there is NO evidence whatsoever.  NO objectivity, by definition.  Sop, try as you might, you are not going to skirt around the qualitative difference between an evidence d-based determination and one made on faith, even if the existential statement 'there is a degree of subjectivity involved " is always true.  And that IS what you are attempting.  That is the crux of your attempt to place faith on the same shelf as evidence-based determination

Again, the blind man would be more likely to believe there is a sunset in the sky than a pink dragon, and this is exactly why.  If you you are trying to argue were true, this would not be the case.


No, not every belief is 'equally subjective", even if they are all subjective to a degree.  Faith?  No evidence, completely subjective.  Else, it is not faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
Click to expand...


"We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. 

Nah, that's an illusion.  It's up to your environment, and your hard-wired tendency toward it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Divine.Wind said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.  There is not evidence of anything outside the Natural Universe nor is there any evidence of how the Universe came to be.  There is plenty of solid evidence of the Big Bang, evolution and everything after the Big Bang, but not the "why?".
Click to expand...



"God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.""

Exactly.  i don't see the problem.  If one believes in an all-powerful God, then they can just look at anything and say, "God did that!".  Why trifle with the scientific explanation of how it happened?

Oh yeah.... dogma.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
Click to expand...


IF God truly *wanted* humans to believe in Jesus as their savior, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live.

Instead... pfft ... he still hasn't even informed everyone on the planet.  What a lollygagger!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us.
> 
> Nah, that's an illusion.  It's up to your environment, and your hard-wired tendency toward faith.
Click to expand...


----------



## Votto

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?



(eyes roll)

You do realize that a priest was the first to come up with the Big Bang theory, right?


There are 5 videos, just keep pressing them.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Now, compare this to faith. in faith, there is NO evidence whatsoever. NO objectivity, by definition.



This is just flat out FALSE. I don't know of anyone who has faith in anything with NO evidence whatsoever. 



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In an evidence-based determination, you CAN have it both ways, in this way:
> 
> You can make a prediction, based on the evidence, and sometimes subjectivity enters the fray.



No... EVERY time, subjectivity enters the fray because people value evidence differently. 



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again, the blind man would be more likely to believe there is a sunset in the sky than a pink dragon, and this is exactly why. If you you are trying to argue were true, this would not be the case.



Well, for the twentieth time now... because, apparently, your head is like a block of granite... I never made the analogy of the blind man not believing the sun sets. You keep going right back to that false assertion in spite of me correcting you over and over and over and over. Are you stupid in the head or something? Why aren't you comprehending what I type repeatedly?


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us.
> 
> Nah, that's an illusion.  It's up to your environment, and your hard-wired tendency toward it.
Click to expand...


We're hard-wired to be spiritually connected.


----------



## Divine Wind

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us.
> 
> Nah, that's an illusion.  It's up to your environment, and your hard-wired tendency toward it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're hard-wired to be spiritually connected.
Click to expand...

Agreed here, although that doesn't mean "hard-wired to be religious".  Religion is in response to mankind's spirituality, spirituality is not the result of religion as some atheists are keen to purport.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, you should love this!
> 
> Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie.
> 
> Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.
> 
> Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
> 
> So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply?
> 
> You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe there is anything "magical" about God or His creation. You are pondering questions with the mind of an intellectually-advanced monkey. No disrespect, but you're no match for God. You weren't blessed with an incredible mind so that you could sit around second guessing God and coming up with a better plan. I realize things God has done, doesn't make sense to you but look... take a copy of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity by your local zoo and give it to a monkey and see what they make of it? Chances are, they'll just wipe their ass with it and look at you like... Where's my banana?
> 
> One of the things I think is hard to grasp for Atheists when it comes to God is that God doesn't reside in a physical reality and isn't confined by space and time. While our universe seems large to us, the dimensions are meaningless to God. While it seems far away to the nearest star, it means nothing to God. We look at 14.5 billion years as a very long time but it's nothing to God.
Click to expand...

Give us your creation story. Tell us how different it is from the Bible.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
Click to expand...

Most Christians will tell you worship is required

Does God Demand Worship?

What is true worship?

*Matthew 4:10 ESV / 4 helpful votes  *
Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

*Revelation 22:9 ESV / 18 helpful votes  *
But he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” [Angel, messenger of God,  speaking]

What Does the Bible Say About Worship God?

Prayer: The Highest Form of Worship


----------



## Divine Wind

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tankbda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.
> 
> IF God truly *wanted* humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Christians will tell you worship is required
> 
> Does God Demand Worship?
> 
> What is true worship?
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Worship God?
Click to expand...

Don't Muslims and Jews say the same?  Do you hate one religion more than all the others or do you hate them all equally?


----------



## MarkDuffy

mamooth said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way, I do not consider the moon the moon. I consider earth/moon a binary planet, cuz the moon is waaay too big to be a moon. If we can reject Pluto as a planet for being too small, then we need to reject the moon as a moon for being too big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, no.
> 
> To be considered a double planet system, the common center of mass of the system must be located in empty space between the two bodies.
> 
> However, the common center of mass of the earth-moon system is below the surface of the earth.
> 
> Hence, the moon is a moon, and not a planet itself. The moon would need about 40% more mass to be classified as a planet.
Click to expand...

LOL, you are a very tough grader. The moon gets farther from the earth at a current rate of 3.8cm/year and was much closer in the past. So in the future we will become a double planet by even your definition.

Who was the first spacewalker? | Space Facts – Astronomy, the Solar System & Outer Space | All About Space Magazine


----------



## Divine Wind

MarkDuffy said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way, I do not consider the moon the moon. I consider earth/moon a binary planet, cuz the moon is waaay too big to be a moon. If we can reject Pluto as a planet for being too small, then we need to reject the moon as a moon for being too big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, no.
> 
> To be considered a double planet system, the common center of mass of the system must be located in empty space between the two bodies.
> 
> However, the common center of mass of the earth-moon system is below the surface of the earth.
> 
> Hence, the moon is a moon, and not a planet itself. The moon would need about 40% more mass to be classified as a planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you are a very tough grader. The moon gets farther from the earth at a current rate of 3.8cm/year and was much closer in the past. So in the future we will become a double planet by even your definition.
> 
> Who was the first spacewalker? | Space Facts – Astronomy, the Solar System & Outer Space | All About Space Magazine
Click to expand...

3.8cm/year?  Since the time of Christ, the Moon has moved away less than the length of a football field (about 80 yards).  A big whoop-dee-doo


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, compare this to faith. in faith, there is NO evidence whatsoever. NO objectivity, by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just flat out FALSE. I don't know of anyone who has faith in anything with NO evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an evidence-based determination, you CAN have it both ways, in this way:
> 
> You can make a prediction, based on the evidence, and sometimes subjectivity enters the fray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... EVERY time, subjectivity enters the fray because people value evidence differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the blind man would be more likely to believe there is a sunset in the sky than a pink dragon, and this is exactly why. If you you are trying to argue were true, this would not be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for the twentieth time now... because, apparently, your head is like a block of granite... I never made the analogy of the blind man not believing the sun sets. You keep going right back to that false assertion in spite of me correcting you over and over and over and over. Are you stupid in the head or something? Why aren't you comprehending what I type repeatedly?
Click to expand...


"I don't know of anyone who has faith in anything with NO evidence whatsoever. "

Sure you do.  The ones who admit to themselves they believe without any evidence are too embarrassed to admit it.  The ones who claim they have evidence are either lying or mistaken.  Just calling something evidence does not make it evidence.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "I don't know of anyone who has faith in anything with NO evidence whatsoever. "
> 
> Sure you do. The ones who admit to themselves they believe without any evidence are too embarrassed to admit it. The ones who claim they have evidence are either lying or mistaken. Just calling something evidence does not make it evidence.




Again... You can THINK whatever you like. I have never known of anyone who has faith in anything without any evidence. 

Now you are correct... All evidence is subjective... I made that point earlier. Evidence is only evidence to the individual who values it as such. Just because YOU see something as evidence doesn't mean I see it as evidence.. it's entirely subjective.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Most Christians will tell you worship is required



I was raised in a Baptist family and have an Uncle who is a minister. 
I've never heard ANY Christian make this claim.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Give us your creation story. Tell us how different it is from the Bible.



I don't really have a "creation story" because I don't need one. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Energy which is responsible for the creation of physical nature and life. This Spiritual Energy guides me on a path toward good and away from evil... toward the light and away from the dark. 

I will often SAY that this Spiritual Force is "intelligent" but I have also posited that perhaps "intelligent" is not the most adequate word to describe it.... it is simply the closest grunting sound us advanced monkeys can make. Sorry if that doesn't make sense... another way to state it is this: IS omniscience the same as intelligence or is it more?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't know of anyone who has faith in anything with NO evidence whatsoever. "
> 
> Sure you do. The ones who admit to themselves they believe without any evidence are too embarrassed to admit it. The ones who claim they have evidence are either lying or mistaken. Just calling something evidence does not make it evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... You can THINK whatever you like. I have never known of anyone who has faith in anything without any evidence.
> 
> Now you are correct... All evidence is subjective... I made that point earlier. Evidence is only evidence to the individual who values it as such. Just because YOU see something as evidence doesn't mean I see it as evidence.. it's entirely subjective.
Click to expand...


"Again... You can THINK whatever you like. I have never known of anyone who has faith in anything without any evidence. "


You can THINK whatever you like.  Every person who has faith is doing so without evidence, else it is not faith.

See how that works?  When all you have at your disposal are authoritative declarations, the correct rebuttal to anything you say is, "Nuh-uh!".  That's your first clue that you have a weak argument.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Again... You can THINK whatever you like. I have never known of anyone who has faith in anything without any evidence. "
> 
> 
> You can THINK whatever you like. Every person who has faith is doing so without evidence, else it is not faith.
> 
> See how that works? When all you have at your disposal are authoritative declarations, the correct rebuttal to anything you say is, "Nuh-uh!". That's your first clue that you have a weak argument.



No, I don't see how that works. I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. I see there is a huge difference between evidence and proof. I can tell you that I have "evidence" that Elvis Presley is still alive.... you can accept my evidence as valid or not but my faith that Elvis lives is based on my subjective evaluation of my evidence. Your rejection of my evidence doesn't mean that I don't have any or that I have faith in something without evidence. I don't have PROOF but that's something different entirely. 

Faith is belief without PROOF... not evidence.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Votto said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (eyes roll)
> 
> You do realize that a priest was the first to come up with the Big Bang theory, right?
> 
> 
> There are 5 videos, just keep pressing them.
Click to expand...

and a monk came up with genetics. Mendel (our other Daddy)!


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians will tell you worship is required
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised in a Baptist family and have an Uncle who is a minister.
> I've never heard ANY Christian make this claim.
Click to expand...

I'm a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. My entire Mom's side were ministers. 

I have never heard ANY Christian NOT make this claim. Perhaps you should ignore the Christian links I provide cuz they are obvious liars?

Here's one now, duck! ~ Why does God demand, seek, or request that we worship Him?


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians will tell you worship is required
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised in a Baptist family and have an Uncle who is a minister.
> I've never heard ANY Christian make this claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. My entire Mom's side were ministers.
> 
> I have never heard ANY Christian NOT make this claim. Perhaps you should ignore the Christian links I provide cuz they are obvious liars?
> 
> Here's one now, duck! ~ Why does God demand, seek, or request that we worship Him?
Click to expand...


You keep posting links from theologians making an argument. This doesn't make what they say true. LOTS of passages in the Bible are misinterpreted... it happens all the time. That's precisely why we have so many denominations who profess belief in the same Bible. I'm not saying there aren't any religious people who believe God commands you to worship Him... I've just never known them. My Uncle's perspective is that a true Christian _*desires*_ to worship God. It's not a mandate. 

You would think that if God mandates you worship Him it would be one of the Ten Commandments but the closest you can come is God's mandate that you have no other God before Him or worship false idols. Nothing in there saying you must worship God. Can someone interpret it that way? Sure... it's why we have all the denominations!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Again... You can THINK whatever you like. I have never known of anyone who has faith in anything without any evidence. "
> 
> 
> You can THINK whatever you like. Every person who has faith is doing so without evidence, else it is not faith.
> 
> See how that works? When all you have at your disposal are authoritative declarations, the correct rebuttal to anything you say is, "Nuh-uh!". That's your first clue that you have a weak argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't see how that works. I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. I see there is a huge difference between evidence and proof. I can tell you that I have "evidence" that Elvis Presley is still alive.... you can accept my evidence as valid or not but my faith that Elvis lives is based on my subjective evaluation of my evidence. Your rejection of my evidence doesn't mean that I don't have any or that I have faith in something without evidence. I don't have PROOF but that's something different entirely.
> 
> Faith is belief without PROOF... not evidence.
Click to expand...


"I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. "


I know you do, and you are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time, and you will always be wrong.  And I called out this slow creep you were attempting to this false equivalence in about your third post.  This is "The Alamo" for guys like you: all opinions are equal in that they are just opinions, anything with any degree of subjectivity is equally subjective to all else(which is everything), and evidence-based determinations have no more value than faith-based belief.
This is you, trying to place your faith-based nonsense on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge not by elevating your own nonsense, but rather by trying to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the mud.  same thing, everytime.  Very predictable, and obviously very wrong.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. "
> 
> 
> I know you do, and you are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time, and you will always be wrong. And I called out this slow creep you were attempting to this false equivalence in about your third post. This is "The Alamo" for guys like you: all opinions are equal in that they are just opinions, anything with any degree of subjectivity is equally subjective to all else(which is everything), and evidence-based determinations have no more value than faith-based belief.
> This is you, trying to place your faith-based nonsense on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge not by elevating your own nonsense, but rather by trying to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the mud. same thing, everytime. Very predictable, and obviously very wrong.



LOL... Well I even gave you an illustrative example of how I am right. 

What you want to do is use bully tactics to proclaim your evidence superior to all other evidence and claim moral authority over what is objective evidence. I'm not allowing you to do that and it's frustrating you. We ALL make "evidence-based" determinations because our faiths rely on evidence. Faith is belief without PROOF. You have faith in what you subjectively believe is objective evidence. 

Let me give you ANOTHER illustrative example. You drop a bowling ball. You have faith the ball will travel to the floor. Your faith is based on your subjective evaluation that gravity is objective evidence. Turns out, your faith is well founded. Now let's go back to the days of Galileo. In his time, people believed heavier things fall faster than light things. He thought the evidence for this was subjective so he tested it. He provided us with new evidence that gravity works equally on everything. His objective evidence becomes proof.


----------



## Divine Wind

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians will tell you worship is required
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised in a Baptist family and have an Uncle who is a minister.
> I've never heard ANY Christian make this claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. My entire Mom's side were ministers.
> 
> I have never heard ANY Christian NOT make this claim. Perhaps you should ignore the Christian links I provide cuz they are obvious liars?
> 
> Here's one now, duck! ~ Why does God demand, seek, or request that we worship Him?
Click to expand...

1) I disagree with both of you since I've heard some Christians say yes and some not say anything about "worship" per se albeit acceptance of belief is certainly a requirement.

2) There are a lot more denominations of Christianity than Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, and Evangelicals. 

3) Mark's link is biased and, no doubt, selected to provide evidence of his point, but not proof of his claim that all Christians require "worship".  From Mark's link: "_We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God..._".  Not all Christians take the Bible literally as the linked one does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I see that "evidence" is a subjective value. "
> 
> 
> I know you do, and you are wrong. You have been wrong the entire time, and you will always be wrong. And I called out this slow creep you were attempting to this false equivalence in about your third post. This is "The Alamo" for guys like you: all opinions are equal in that they are just opinions, anything with any degree of subjectivity is equally subjective to all else(which is everything), and evidence-based determinations have no more value than faith-based belief.
> This is you, trying to place your faith-based nonsense on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge not by elevating your own nonsense, but rather by trying to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the mud. same thing, everytime. Very predictable, and obviously very wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Well I even gave you an illustrative example of how I am right.
> 
> What you want to do is use bully tactics to proclaim your evidence superior to all other evidence and claim moral authority over what is objective evidence. I'm not allowing you to do that and it's frustrating you. We ALL make "evidence-based" determinations because our faiths rely on evidence. Faith is belief without PROOF. You have faith in what you subjectively believe is objective evidence.
> 
> Let me give you ANOTHER illustrative example. You drop a bowling ball. You have faith the ball will travel to the floor. Your faith is based on your subjective evaluation that gravity is objective evidence. Turns out, your faith is well founded. Now let's go back to the days of Galileo. In his time, people believed heavier things fall faster than light things. He thought the evidence for this was subjective so he tested it. He provided us with new evidence that gravity works equally on everything. His objective evidence becomes proof.
Click to expand...


There you go again... "My evidence"...yet no mention of which evidence you are referring to. As if the mountains of mutually supportive evidence from all fields of science is "my evidence". This hilarious attempt to personalize the debate is truly the hallmark of a charlatan.

Either something is evidence, or it is not. No, whether or not you"feel" it is evidence is not relevant, when gathering scientific evidence.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> There you go again... "My evidence"...yet no mention of which evidence you are referring to. As if the mountains of mutually supportive evidence from all fields of science is "my evidence". This hilarious attempt to personalize the debate is truly the hallmark of a charlatan.
> 
> Either something is evidence, or it is not. No, whether or not you"feel" it is evidence is not relevant, when gathering scientific evidence.



,Why do you want to make an ad populum argument as if that is scientific? Is there some misunderstanding about this? Popularity of an argument is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's not even evidence of anything, other than, it's popular opinion! When you say "mutually supportive" that's exactly what you are saying... this big group of people over here agree with me, therefore, I am correct! 

And AGAIN... because you seem to have a head of concrete... ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE! You and I may differ completely on what we consider valid evidence of something. I've given you several examples and you just fucking ignore them and keep right on stubbornly trying to make an inaccurate point. There are people who believe aliens are roaming the earth among us... they can show you their evidence! You may not see their evidence as valid... that doesn't mean they don't have it... it just means you don't value it as evidence and they do. I don't know any other way this can be explained to you. If you just stubbornly refuse to accept that different people value evidence differently... go on through life believing that, but you're just fucking _WRONG!  _


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again... "My evidence"...yet no mention of which evidence you are referring to. As if the mountains of mutually supportive evidence from all fields of science is "my evidence". This hilarious attempt to personalize the debate is truly the hallmark of a charlatan.
> 
> Either something is evidence, or it is not. No, whether or not you"feel" it is evidence is not relevant, when gathering scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,Why do you want to make an ad populum argument as if that is scientific? Is there some misunderstanding about this? Popularity of an argument is NOT scientific proof of anything. It's not even evidence of anything, other than, it's popular opinion! When you say "mutually supportive" that's exactly what you are saying... this big group of people over here agree with me, therefore, I am correct!
> 
> And AGAIN... because you seem to have a head of concrete... ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE! You and I may differ completely on what we consider valid evidence of something. I've given you several examples and you just fucking ignore them and keep right on stubbornly trying to make an inaccurate point. There are people who believe aliens are roaming the earth among us... they can show you their evidence! You may not see their evidence as valid... that doesn't mean they don't have it... it just means you don't value it as evidence and they do. I don't know any other way this can be explained to you. If you just stubbornly refuse to accept that different people value evidence differently... go on through life believing that, but you're just fucking _WRONG!  _
Click to expand...

The one making the 'ad populum' argument for the truth of anything is the one who says evidence is all subjective, and so ultimately is decided to be evidence by the most peole "feeling" it is evidence.

That one, in our discussion, would be you.

And that is not the first time in this discussion you have accused me or others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.


----------



## theHawk

ScienceRocks said:


> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?



The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The one making the 'ad populum' argument for the truth of anything is the one who says evidence is all subjective, and so ultimately is decided to be evidence by the most peole "feeling" it is evidence.
> 
> That one, in our discussion, would be you.
> 
> And that is not the first time in this discussion you have accused me or others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.



Apparently, someone doesn't know what "argumentum ad populum" means.... How about you go look that up before you make more of a fool of yourself? 

I did not ever say that "evidence" is based on popular opinion. That's just a bold faced LIE and you are a LIAR. 

My statement was, all evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I'm sorry if I embarrassed you by schooling you and then schlonging your ass up one side of this forum and down the other... but that's what you deserve for being such an obtuse and obnoxious little troll bot.


----------



## Boss

theHawk said:


> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.



Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise. 

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!


----------



## MarkDuffy

God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
Click to expand...

"Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."

Two things incorrect about this statement:

1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet

2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
Click to expand...


That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.
> 
> Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.
Click to expand...


Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. 

Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.
> 
> Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.
> 
> Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.
Click to expand...

"Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. "

You contradict yourself. You first try to say that nothing is proven to always be true, then you misrepresent abiogeneis as an attempt to disprove biogenesis, which would only be the case if you meant biogenesis were always true. Abiogenesis as the origin of life would not disprove the principle of biogenesis, which could still hold in all evolution of life deriving from the first common ancestor. Oops. Sometimes the truth slips out on accident...


----------



## theHawk

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.
> 
> Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.
Click to expand...


"Abiogenesis" is a joke, it in no way demonstrates how to create life from the raw elements.


----------



## theHawk

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."
> 
> Two things incorrect about this statement:
> 
> 1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet
> 
> 2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.
Click to expand...


Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons.  Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science backgrund ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. "
> 
> You contradict yourself. You first try to say that nothing is proven to always be true, then you misrepresent abiogeneis as an attempt to disprove biogenesis, which would only be the case if you meant biogenesis were always true. Abiogenesis as the origin of life would not disprove the principle of biogenesis, which could still hold in all evolution of life deriving from the first common ancestor. Oops. Sometimes the truth slips out on accident...



Not a contradiction at all. Theories remain valid theories until they are disproved. Abiogenesis WOULD disprove the theory of Biogenesis.  For heaven's sake, the fucking name should be a clue!


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...



Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis." 

Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation. 

Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
Click to expand...

LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.


----------



## MarkDuffy

theHawk said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."
> 
> Two things incorrect about this statement:
> 
> 1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet
> 
> 2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons.  Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.
Click to expand...

_Carbon is not organic_

Oh really? Did anyone here make this claim? No!

_Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. _

Perhaps you can point out where any of us claimed the primitive environment that gave rise to the abiogenesis of life was inorganic? CO2 organic? CH4 organic? HCN organic?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.
> 
> Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.
> 
> Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.
Click to expand...

That would be 100 abiogenesis hypotheses

and

Why must only one be true?

I would assume all 100 were going on at the same time.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.
> 
> Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.
> 
> Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.
Click to expand...

_Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation._

Another bold assertion from the Bible according to Boss?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science backgrund ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. "
> 
> You contradict yourself. You first try to say that nothing is proven to always be true, then you misrepresent abiogeneis as an attempt to disprove biogenesis, which would only be the case if you meant biogenesis were always true. Abiogenesis as the origin of life would not disprove the principle of biogenesis, which could still hold in all evolution of life deriving from the first common ancestor. Oops. Sometimes the truth slips out on accident...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a contradiction at all. Theories remain valid theories until they are disproved. Abiogenesis WOULD disprove the theory of Biogenesis.  For heaven's sake, the fucking name should be a clue!
Click to expand...

Sorry Boss

Point goes to Fort Fun Indiana by TKO. You did contradict yourself (again).

I would suggest you remove always, ever, nothing  and such absolute words from your science vocabulary if you wanna play with the big boys and girls.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."
> 
> Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.
> 
> Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.
Click to expand...

_Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation. _

There you go again with your bold assertions quoting from the Bible according to Boss.


----------



## MarkDuffy

I keep dropping this coin and it keeps falling.

The Bible according to Boss clearly states this has not been validated by scientists, so eventually, it WILL go into orbit.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.
Click to expand...


You really crack me up that you reject the work of Pasteur and renounce the theory of Biogenesis without ANY scientific basis to do so. I think Atheist Scientists need to be categorized as a religious cult because that is exactly how you behave.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really crack me up that you reject the work of Pasteur and renounce the theory of Biogenesis without ANY scientific basis to do so. I think Atheist Scientists need to be categorized as a religious cult because that is exactly how you behave.
Click to expand...


LOL, I don't reject the work of Pasteur! I just don't project nonsense into it.

Shouldn't you be arguing that Pasteur's experiment disproves your God hypothesis?

*In Christianity*

As the dominant view of philosophers and thinkers continued to be in favour of spontaneous generation, some Christian theologians accepted the view. Augustine of Hippo discussed spontaneous generation in _The City of God_ and _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_, citing Biblical passages such as "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (Genesis 1:20) as decrees that would enable ongoing creation.[20]

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Genesis 1:20  ~ And God said, “*Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures*, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”

Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> _Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation._
> 
> Another bold assertion from the Bible according to Boss?



No, it's actually a statement of fact and it's an insult to science and the scientific method to try and contradict it. Science never establishes that ANYTHING is always true. That would be a conclusion and science doesn't draw conclusions. PEOPLE draw conclusion based on faith in science. Science observes, evaluates, measures, tests and falsifies... then postulates predictions based on probability. Once you have drawn a conclusion, Science checks out, punches the clock and is down at the pub having a beer... it's work is done and you are now practicing a FAITH in your conclusion. Science cannot do a thing with a conclusion.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."
> 
> Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.
> 
> Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation. _
> 
> There you go again with your bold assertions quoting from the Bible according to Boss.
Click to expand...


No... again... another statement of FACT.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> I keep dropping this coin and it keeps falling.
> 
> The Bible according to Boss clearly states this has not been validated by scientists, so eventually, it WILL go into orbit.



I guess you never heard of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics? Gravity is certainly not something that has been "discovered to always be true." While it is a fundamental force we can accurately measure, there is still a lot we don't know about gravity. This would include, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and other phenomenon such as black holes and the observer effect. 

My Bible is Science. You are a religious fundamentalist who believes science supports your worldview.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really crack me up that you reject the work of Pasteur and renounce the theory of Biogenesis without ANY scientific basis to do so. I think Atheist Scientists need to be categorized as a religious cult because that is exactly how you behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I don't reject the work of Pasteur! I just don't project nonsense into it.
> 
> Shouldn't you be arguing that Pasteur's experiment disproves your God hypothesis?
> 
> *In Christianity*
> 
> As the dominant view of philosophers and thinkers continued to be in favour of spontaneous generation, some Christian theologians accepted the view. Augustine of Hippo discussed spontaneous generation in _The City of God_ and _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_, citing Biblical passages such as "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (Genesis 1:20) as decrees that would enable ongoing creation.[20]
> 
> Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
> 
> Genesis 1:20  ~ And God said, “*Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures*, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”
> 
> Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."
Click to expand...


No, you absolutely rejected it in no uncertain terms. You didn't actually offer any science to support your rejection but we're seeing that is a pattern here with you. 

And now, you want to quote Bible passages to me as if I am here defending Christianity. That's because your fundamentalist religion is anti-Christian and that's what you are armed to do battle against. 

I am not here to defend the Bible as you interpret it or Christianity, for that matter. However, if life originated through some abiogenesis process, that doesn't negate creation by God. Just because you can figure out how God did something, doesn't mean God didn't do it. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for a fundie like you but it's true.


----------



## Divine Wind

MarkDuffy said:


> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.


Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.  

What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep dropping this coin and it keeps falling.
> 
> The Bible according to Boss clearly states this has not been validated by scientists, so eventually, it WILL go into orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never heard of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics? Gravity is certainly not something that has been "discovered to always be true." While it is a fundamental force we can accurately measure, there is still a lot we don't know about gravity. This would include, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and other phenomenon such as black holes and the observer effect.
> 
> My Bible is Science. You are a religious fundamentalist who believes science supports your worldview.
Click to expand...

LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?

Trust me on this. The coin will go down.


----------



## theHawk

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."
> 
> Two things incorrect about this statement:
> 
> 1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet
> 
> 2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons.  Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Carbon is not organic_
> 
> Oh really? Did anyone here make this claim? No!
> 
> _Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. _
> 
> Perhaps you can point out where any of us claimed the primitive environment that gave rise to the abiogenesis of life was inorganic? CO2 organic? CH4 organic? HCN organic?
Click to expand...


Yes, someone here made that claim.

Considering the definition of organic is living matter, yes one has to assume that the creation of the first life had to come from a universe devoid of life.  Unless you are here to tell us that "abiogenesis" is a theory where life is created out of already existing organic life, which would only make the theory even more absurd.

Are you really this dumb?  And libs claim they are all about science.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.



Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?  

What if you're in a black hole? 

What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?

What if you are in the vacuum of space? 

What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands? 

You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.


----------



## The Irish Ram

DNA is a code.  The very first live,  single celled organism had a complex code installed  in it.  So, who created that code?  Ask Bill Gates if complex digital codes can be created by chance.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Divine.Wind said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
Click to expand...


You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God. 
But Satan's reign is coming to an end....


----------



## MarkDuffy

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."
> 
> Two things incorrect about this statement:
> 
> 1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet
> 
> 2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons.  Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Carbon is not organic_
> 
> Oh really? Did anyone here make this claim? No!
> 
> _Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. _
> 
> Perhaps you can point out where any of us claimed the primitive environment that gave rise to the abiogenesis of life was inorganic? CO2 organic? CH4 organic? HCN organic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, someone here made that claim.
> 
> Considering the definition of organic is living matter, yes one has to assume that the creation of the first life had to come from a universe devoid of life.  Unless you are here to tell us that "abiogenesis" is a theory where life is created out of already existing organic life, which would only make the theory even more absurd.
> 
> Are you really this dumb?  And libs claim they are all about science.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you religionists are trying to coop another science term. Why am I not surprized?

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. Biochemistry is the organic chemistry of molecules associated with life. 

First it was environmentalists who stole our word (to mean no pesticides), now it is the religionists. 

We really outta sue


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
Click to expand...

I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.

Guess what? The coin just went down again. 

Is this proof of God?


----------



## MarkDuffy

The Irish Ram said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God.
> But Satan's reign is coming to an end....
Click to expand...

Satan created cancer? God didn't stop him?

Wow, Satan is greater than your God

You people crack me up


----------



## The Irish Ram

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
Click to expand...


  Now you have confused God with gravity.
God is not gravity,  God produced gravity for our benefit.  Try keeping your feet on the ground without it.

And Satan knows his time is limited, even if you don't.  God indeed is going to stop Satan.  Adam gave this earth over to Satan for a time.  God knows when Satan's time is up.  You do not.

Nothing is greater than my God.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
Click to expand...


In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument. 

We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
Click to expand...


No need to test it.  If you have eyes, you have seen a lack of gravity on the space station.
What about gravity do you think nullifies the  existence of God?
And given your scientific bent, address the complex digital code in the simplest of life forms.  Who created the code necessary for life in that single celled pond scummy amoeba?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about all of that. Only you are.

I simply was dropping a coin.

Pay attention


----------



## MarkDuffy

The Irish Ram said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have confused God with gravity.
> God is not gravity,  God produced gravity for our benefit.  Try keeping your feet on the ground without it.
> 
> And Satan knows his time is limited, even if you don't.  God indeed is going to stop Satan.  Adam gave this earth over to Satan for a time.  God knows when Satan's time is up.  You do not.
> 
> Nothing is greater than my God.
Click to expand...

Wait WHAT?

Adam gave the earth to Satan?

That's a pretty good trick. So we now have even Adam greater than God.

Poor God, he's looking more and more worthless all the time


----------



## The Irish Ram

You seem to be a little hard of understanding.   And a lot light on facts. Did you not know that God gave Adam dominion over the earth?  The Greater gave what He made for man, TO man.  Nothing about that made Adam greater than God.

You keep ignoring the issue of the complex dna code.  I have answered your questions.   How about you answering mine.  Who created the code?

You'll be made aware of God's worth the moment your knees bow without your permission.


----------



## MarkDuffy

The Irish Ram said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to test it.  If you have eyes, you have seen a lack of gravity on the space station.
> What about gravity do you think nullifies the  existence of God?
> And given your scientific bent, address the complex digital code in the simplest of life forms.  Who created the code necessary for life in that single celled pond scummy amoeba?
Click to expand...

Perhaps a lesson in orbital mechanics would help. There is gravity on the space station. The space station is falling also so the effect gravity is cancelled.

Is there gravity in the Space Station? | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about all of that. Only you are.
> 
> I simply was dropping a coin.
> 
> Pay attention
Click to expand...



I'm paying attention, you're not! Your coin drop was to illustrate how science had "determined something always true." You FAILED.... which is obviously a very familiar situation for you.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> The space station is falling also *so the effect gravity is cancelled*.



Ahhhhhh... So gravity is NOT always true?


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about all of that. Only you are.
> 
> I simply was dropping a coin.
> 
> Pay attention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm paying attention, you're not! Your coin drop was to illustrate how science had "determined something always true." You FAILED.... which is obviously a very familiar situation for you.
Click to expand...

Yet the coin keeps falling every time I drop it. You claim eventually it will not fall. Shirley sounds like an "always true" situation to me.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about all of that. Only you are.
> 
> I simply was dropping a coin.
> 
> Pay attention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm paying attention, you're not! Your coin drop was to illustrate how science had "determined something always true." You FAILED.... which is obviously a very familiar situation for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet the coin keeps falling every time I drop it. You claim eventually it will not fall. Shirley sounds like an "always true" situation to me.
Click to expand...


I know... that's called "conventional wisdom." It's precisely why Science was invented. Aristotle would have explained the coin desires to be near the Earth. Newton used science and math to figure out the coin falls because a force acting upon it to attract it to Earth. A few hundred years later, Einstein discovered that's not true either, the coin falls because of a bending in space-time and a force is pushing the coin down to Earth. Quantum physicists are now searching for a particle called a Graviton which is believed to be responsible for gravity in matter.  

Now, for the record... I never claimed that eventually the coin wouldn't fall. That's YOU sugar britches! Those are YOUR words. A direct outright bold face LIE about what I said because that's the kind of dishonest fuckwit you are. I said there is a possibility... and that is true. Ask any actual scientist (because you are certainly NOT one.)


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space station is falling also *so the effect gravity is cancelled*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh... So gravity is NOT always true?
Click to expand...

LOL, you are desperate today


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The space station is falling also *so the effect gravity is cancelled*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh... So gravity is NOT always true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, you are desperate today
Click to expand...



Nah... just finishing off this pot of coffee before heading out to make some money.


----------



## Divine Wind

The Irish Ram said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God.
> But Satan's reign is coming to an end....
Click to expand...

You think Satan is equal to God or you think God isn't all merciful?  I disagree, but believe as you wish.


----------



## MarkDuffy

The Irish Ram said:


> You seem to be a little hard of understanding.   And a lot light on facts. Did you not know that God gave Adam dominion over the earth?  The Greater gave what He made for man, TO man.  Nothing about that made Adam greater than God.
> 
> You keep ignoring the issue of the complex dna code.  I have answered your questions.   How about you answering mine.  Who created the code?
> 
> You'll be made aware of God's worth the moment your knees bow without your permission.



_Did you not know that God gave Adam dominion over the earth?_

So all this time believers have been telling me that new creation after Genesis was really from the God Adam and the God God had been fired?

Back to the original point.

Adam created cancer?

Why aren't we worshiping Adam?

_Who created the code?
_
The DNA code was created by Mr. RNA


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of _*Biogenesis*_. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.
> 
> What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.
> 
> Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Abiogenesis" is a joke, it in no way demonstrates how to create life from the raw elements.
Click to expand...


What a ridiculous commemt....that's exactly what abiogenesis does. That's all it does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."
> 
> Two things incorrect about this statement:
> 
> 1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet
> 
> 2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons.  Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life.  Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.  Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life.  It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world.  The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.
Click to expand...

"The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. "

You are making zero sense. And even the claim you are trying to make is absurd. As if not having replicated the exact process means we never will, or even that doing so would be required to accept abiogenesis as fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."
> 
> Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.
> 
> Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.
Click to expand...


"Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. "

Ha, yeah, we know you think this. You have been trying (and failing) to craft this absurd false equivalence for this entire thread, and , no doubt, for your entire life. I imagine your utter, abject failure to do so is a great source of frustration for you. "All evidence is subjective".... Yet you can never quite meet the evidentiary standards required to get your magical nonsense placed on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge.

So, given that you are unable to raise up your magical nonsense to the general level of respect you have convinced yourself that it deserves, the only choice you are left with is to try to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the murk where your magical ideas reside, and just to try to paint all knowledge as "faith". As embarrassing and annoying as this is, I dont see much need to expend any energy combatting it. I know it will fail. You know it will fail. At this point, it's just a vain exercise in self-soothing on your part.

Boss:  "Belief in god= faith, just as belief in a scientific theory=faith"

Oh man...I dont know whether to make fun of you or feel bad for you.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."
> 
> Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.
> 
> Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. "
> 
> Ha, yeah, we know you think this. You have been trying (and failing) to craft this absurd false equivalence for this entire thread, and , no doubt, for your entire life. I imagine your utter, abject failure to do so is a great source of frustration for you. "All evidence is subjective".... Yet you can never quite meet the evidentiary standards required to get your magical nonsense placed on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge.
> 
> So, given that you are unable to raise up your magical nonsense to the general level of respect you have convinced yourself that it deserves, the only choice you are left with is to try to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the murk where your magical ideas reside, and just to try to paint all knowledge as "faith". As embarrassing and annoying as this is, I dont see much need to expend any energy combatting it. I know it will fail. You know it will fail. At this point, it's just a vain exercise in self-soothing on your part.
> 
> Boss:  "Belief in god= faith, just as belief in a scientific theory=faith"
> 
> Oh man...I dont know whether to make fun of you or feel bad for you.
Click to expand...


The reason you don't know is because I've left you stunned and shivering, your argument shattered and destroyed. In this thread and the other, you have abandoned your pathetic argument because it is sunk and now you're attempting some face saving. It's okay, you don't have to admit it, your hollow reply was verification enough.


----------



## abu afak

Boss to Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> The reason you don't know is because I've left you stunned and shivering, your argument shattered and destroyed. In this thread and the other, you have abandoned your pathetic argument because it is sunk and now you're attempting some face saving. It's okay, you don't have to admit it, your hollow reply was verification enough.


You've left everyone "stunned" at your Dishonesty and Stupidity.
You have posted NO evidence for god/dog.
Now on page 35...
Still ZERO.
`


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have yet show ANY evidence of your god, or anyone else's.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> And if I am ever able to show you physical proof of God then God becomes physical and negates any concept of a spiritual God. ...*
Click to expand...

Above is STUPID.
There is evidence of evolution, in a long and progressive trail of Fossils, Anatomical remnants we still have, DNA regression analysis, adaptation galore, etc

*Evidence of god in the physical world would Not make 'him' physical you 12 IQ godist clown/Liar.*

ie, If we looked up in the sky and saw it was earth/man centered, with perfect symmetry in the night sky around/for us, that WOULD be evidence of god. As it is, it's random/chaos. Galaxies flying apart, colliding, etc.

If we were 'special' and didn't have 98.6% of the DNA of Chimps, and anatomical remants of our ancestors, THAT would be something. If Man, 'he created in his image' was completely different in chemistry or form (rather than a notable continuum), That WOULD show something.
Nope.

You can last-word me forever Bible boy, what you can't do is debate me. You're not within 40 IQ points of doing so.
Go sell some more hot dogs 'boss.'
`


----------



## MarkDuffy

Isn't our hurricane season this year evidence for God?

Only red states have been hit


----------



## The Irish Ram

Divine.Wind said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God.
> But Satan's reign is coming to an end....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think Satan is equal to God or you think God isn't all merciful?  I disagree, but believe as you wish.
Click to expand...


No where did I say that Satan was equal to God. He is NOT.  Not even close.  God shot Lucifer out of Heaven like a lightening bolt.  But God is 100%  just, and plays by the rules.
Satan has a time here because of Adam.  Remember the demon that asked Christ why He was here, because it wasn't *time* for Him to come here to torment them yet?  Christ's next trip here is for good. He's not leaving.    Satan will be chained.


----------



## Divine Wind

The Irish Ram said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God.
> But Satan's reign is coming to an end....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think Satan is equal to God or you think God isn't all merciful?  I disagree, but believe as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where did I say that Satan was equal to God. He is NOT.  God shot Lucifer out of Heaven like a lightening bolt.
> Satan has a time here because of Adam.  Remember the demon that asked Christ why He was here, because it wasn't time for Him to torment them yet? Christ's next trip here is for good.  Satan will be chained.
Click to expand...

You didn't, per se, but you keep acting like Satan can do as he pleases no matter what God says or wants.

Can Satan take your soul unless you give it to him?  If some asshole was handing out free Justin Bieber t-shirts at a concert with Bieber's picture and, in very small letters in Aramaic, "by wearing this shirt I give my soul to Satan", do you think God would allow that to happen?  If not, why not?  If so, why so?

Additionally, can Lucifer ever be accepted back by God?  If so, then why not everyone?


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> You've left everyone "stunned" at your Dishonesty and Stupidity.
> You have posted NO evidence for god/dog.
> Now on page 35...
> Still ZERO.



Wow... another DIMWIT who thinks someone is going to post some physical evidence of a spiritual God! That takes a really special kind of short bus retard. Hey moron... come back on page 35,000 and I predict there will STILL be no physical evidence to prove God!


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've left everyone "stunned" at your Dishonesty and Stupidity.
> You have posted NO evidence for god/dog.
> Now on page 35...
> Still ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... another DIMWIT who thinks someone is going to post some physical evidence of a spiritual God! That takes a really special kind of short bus retard. Hey moron... come back on page 35,000 and I predict there will STILL be no physical evidence to prove God!
Click to expand...

Ahem, just today



The Irish Ram said:


> Well,   we know Moses saw God's  hand.  So we know He had hands.
> Abraham ate stew with Him, so God had a mouth.  He spoke, so we know He had vocal chords.   He walked in the Garden, so we know He had feet....
> God can take any form He wants.  And even though Christ's body no longer ages,  His hair will be white when He returns.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Above is STUPID.
> There is evidence of evolution, in a long and progressive trail of Fossils, Anatomical remnants we still have, DNA regression analysis, adaptation galore, etc
> 
> *Evidence of god in the physical world would Not make 'him' physical you 12 IQ godist clown/Liar.*
> 
> ie, If we looked up in the sky and saw it was earth/man centered, with perfect symmetry in the night sky around/for us, that WOULD be evidence of god. As it is, it's random/chaos. Galaxies flying apart, colliding, etc.
> 
> If we were 'special' and didn't have 98.6% of the DNA of Chimps, and anatomical remants of our ancestors, THAT would be something. If Man, 'he created in his image' was completely different in chemistry or form (rather than a notable continuum), That WOULD show something.
> Nope.
> 
> You can last-word me forever Bible boy, what you can't do is debate me. You're not within 40 IQ points of doing so.
> Go sell some more hot dogs 'boss.'




None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything. 

Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such. I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe that ONLY God could've created. I see humans possessing a spirit, soul and consciousness that chimps don't have which ONLY God could've bestowed. I view DNA and Evolution as evidence of an intelligent superior power who designed us that way. 

Now... I am not going to sit here and cram MY evidence down your throat and tell you it's empirical truth. Because I realize all evidence is *subjective*. You obviously don't value my evidence the same. But I also can't let you get away with proclaiming I have no evidence when I most certainly do, it's all around me. You just don't value it as such. It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Prophecy.   God can.  Man can not.
And the reason for that is, science. ..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."
> 
> Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.
> 
> Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. "
> 
> Ha, yeah, we know you think this. You have been trying (and failing) to craft this absurd false equivalence for this entire thread, and , no doubt, for your entire life. I imagine your utter, abject failure to do so is a great source of frustration for you. "All evidence is subjective".... Yet you can never quite meet the evidentiary standards required to get your magical nonsense placed on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge.
> 
> So, given that you are unable to raise up your magical nonsense to the general level of respect you have convinced yourself that it deserves, the only choice you are left with is to try to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the murk where your magical ideas reside, and just to try to paint all knowledge as "faith". As embarrassing and annoying as this is, I dont see much need to expend any energy combatting it. I know it will fail. You know it will fail. At this point, it's just a vain exercise in self-soothing on your part.
> 
> Boss:  "Belief in god= faith, just as belief in a scientific theory=faith"
> 
> Oh man...I dont know whether to make fun of you or feel bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason you don't know is because I've left you stunned and shivering, your argument shattered and destroyed. In this thread and the other, you have abandoned your pathetic argument because it is sunk and now you're attempting some face saving. It's okay, you don't have to admit it, your hollow reply was verification enough.
Click to expand...

"The reason you don't know is because I've left you stunned and shivering, your argument shattered and destroyed."


hahaha.... ooookay.... if declarations of victory were actual victories, you would be a 7-star general, sir.  If I want to know an effective way to soothe one's self with hyperbolic self-butt-licking, i will look you up.  If I want to know about scientific topics, I think I will look elsewhere.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Divine.Wind said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God.
> But Satan's reign is coming to an end....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think Satan is equal to God or you think God isn't all merciful?  I disagree, but believe as you wish.
Click to expand...



God burnt cities to the ground over people being gay and flooded the world. Always merciful? Not based on the bible.


----------



## Divine Wind

ScienceRocks said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.
> 
> What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have God confused with Satan, Duff.   Satan created cancer.  There was no such thing in Eden.  Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan.  He didn't give it back to God.
> But Satan's reign is coming to an end....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think Satan is equal to God or you think God isn't all merciful?  I disagree, but believe as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> God burnt cities to the ground over people being gay and flooded the world. Always merciful? Not based on the bible.
Click to expand...

Do you take the Bible literally?  I do not.


----------



## abu afak

Boss said:


> *None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
> Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such.* I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ...* It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.*


Another dishonest reply.
1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.

Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.

You cumstain moron.

"Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationc*y*sts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​
Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
`


----------



## Divine Wind

abu afak said:


> ...Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
> `


Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally.  It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago.  The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.


----------



## abu afak

Divine.Wind said:


> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally.  It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe *but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago.  The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.*


That's all?
What about 'immaculate conception'?
Rising from the dead?
Walking on Water?
Immediate Healing

and even giving license on time period, Genesis has the order of creation wrong.

But it is encouraging that you seem to acknowledge real evidence/fact from faith.
Boss does not.
+


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."
> 
> Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.
> 
> Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. "
> 
> Ha, yeah, we know you think this. You have been trying (and failing) to craft this absurd false equivalence for this entire thread, and , no doubt, for your entire life. I imagine your utter, abject failure to do so is a great source of frustration for you. "All evidence is subjective".... Yet you can never quite meet the evidentiary standards required to get your magical nonsense placed on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge.
> 
> So, given that you are unable to raise up your magical nonsense to the general level of respect you have convinced yourself that it deserves, the only choice you are left with is to try to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the murk where your magical ideas reside, and just to try to paint all knowledge as "faith". As embarrassing and annoying as this is, I dont see much need to expend any energy combatting it. I know it will fail. You know it will fail. At this point, it's just a vain exercise in self-soothing on your part.
> 
> Boss:  "Belief in god= faith, just as belief in a scientific theory=faith"
> 
> Oh man...I dont know whether to make fun of you or feel bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason you don't know is because I've left you stunned and shivering, your argument shattered and destroyed. In this thread and the other, you have abandoned your pathetic argument because it is sunk and now you're attempting some face saving. It's okay, you don't have to admit it, your hollow reply was verification enough.
Click to expand...

Daaaamn, all that and a bag of chips.

How will we ever sleep tonight when you have allowed us to bask in your greatness.

Boss Hoss the only true God.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
Click to expand...

You changed the environment of the experiment, you did not prove anything. I am dropping a coin, your spirit got lost again.


----------



## Boss

abu afak said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
> Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such.* I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ...* It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.*
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest reply.
> 1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> 
> Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> 
> You cumstain moron.
> 
> "Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationc*y*sts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
> So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
> NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
> Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​
> Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
> `
Click to expand...

*1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
*
Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one. 

*Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
*
All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective. 

Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof. 

*Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.*

What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective. 

*Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
*
Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence? 

*Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.*

No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science. 

Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong. They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct. The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.


----------



## Boss

Divine.Wind said:


> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.



But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same. 

It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You changed the environment of the experiment, you did not prove anything. I am dropping a coin, your spirit got lost again.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't change the environment, you didn't state the environment. I took advantage of that detail to show you how your assumption could be wrong. Of course I didn't "prove" anything, it's impossible to prove something to someone who refuses to accept evidence. 

My spirit is not lost and neither is yours. My spirit is strong because I nurture it and yours is weak because you ignore it.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?
> 
> Trust me on this. The coin will go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You changed the environment of the experiment, you did not prove anything. I am dropping a coin, your spirit got lost again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't change the environment, you didn't state the environment. I took advantage of that detail to show you how your assumption could be wrong. Of course I didn't "prove" anything, it's impossible to prove something to someone who refuses to accept evidence.
> 
> My spirit is not lost and neither is yours. My spirit is strong because I nurture it and yours is weak because you ignore it.
Click to expand...

Quote my post and apologize


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
> Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such.* I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ...* It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.*
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest reply.
> 1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> 
> Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> 
> You cumstain moron.
> 
> "Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationc*y*sts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
> So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
> NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
> Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​
> Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> *
> Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one.
> 
> *Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> *
> All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective.
> 
> Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof.
> 
> *Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.*
> 
> What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective.
> 
> *Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> *
> Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence?
> 
> *Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.*
> 
> No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science.
> 
> Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong.
Click to expand...


Were they now?



> They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct.



You have proof of this?



> The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.



Yet none of the dark matter/energy has ever been found. Sounds to me like the invention of "missing mass" is what's wrong.

Why are you believing baseless science, but rejecting well founded evolutionary science?

If you have to invent first dark matter, then dark energy, that should be a hint that the physics is wrong.

Most of the current cosmology is assuming Hubble was correct. Methinks the trouble is there. We had to apply a relativistic adjustment to physics for high velocities. Hubble just might need such an adjustment also.


----------



## Divine Wind

Boss said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
Click to expand...

Disagreed.  

IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.


----------



## Divine Wind

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?
> 
> What if you're in a black hole?
> 
> What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?
> 
> What if you are in the vacuum of space?
> 
> What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?
> 
> You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.
> 
> Guess what? The coin just went down again.
> 
> Is this proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short? YES! It is! But that wasn't our argument.
> 
> We were talking about things science has "discovered to always be true." I just gave you several examples to shoot down your assumption that even something as certain as the law of gravity is not always true. Furthermore, there are theoretical physicists who argue there are places in our universe where actual gravitational force may vary. So, if you dropped your coin there, it might go up instead of down. Of course, we'll never know because we'll never visit that part of our universe to test it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You changed the environment of the experiment, you did not prove anything. I am dropping a coin, your spirit got lost again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't change the environment, you didn't state the environment. I took advantage of that detail to show you how your assumption could be wrong. Of course I didn't "prove" anything, it's impossible to prove something to someone who refuses to accept evidence.
> 
> My spirit is not lost and neither is yours. My spirit is strong because I nurture it and yours is weak because you ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote my post and apologize
Click to expand...

It's hypocritical of you to ask others to do exactly what you've refused to do yourself.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
> Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such.* I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ...* It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.*
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest reply.
> 1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> 
> Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> 
> You cumstain moron.
> 
> "Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationc*y*sts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
> So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
> NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
> Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​
> Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> *
> Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one.
> 
> *Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> *
> All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective.
> 
> Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof.
> 
> *Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.*
> 
> What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective.
> 
> *Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> *
> Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence?
> 
> *Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.*
> 
> No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science.
> 
> Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were they now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proof of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet none of the dark matter/energy has ever been found. Sounds to me like the invention of "missing mass" is what's wrong.
> 
> Why are you believing baseless science, but rejecting well founded evolutionary science?
> 
> If you have to invent first dark matter, then dark energy, that should be a hint that the physics is wrong.
> 
> Most of the current cosmology is assuming Hubble was correct. Methinks the trouble is there. We had to apply a relativistic adjustment to physics for high velocities. Hubble just might need such an adjustment also.
Click to expand...


37:58  to 40:20


----------



## Boss

Divine.Wind said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said. 

When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level. 

You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works. 

To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?


----------



## Divine Wind

Boss said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.
> 
> When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.
> 
> You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.
> 
> To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?
Click to expand...

Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock. 

The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons.  Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.

As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any.  Why?  I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Divine.Wind said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.
> 
> When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.
> 
> You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.
> 
> To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.
> 
> The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons.  Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.
> 
> As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any.  Why?  I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.
Click to expand...


"I think that is part of the mystery "

What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.

Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.


----------



## Divine Wind

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having different creation myths in one's culture and/or religion is only "wrong" if one takes them literally. It's one thing to say God (Allah, the Great Turtle, whatever) created the Universe but it's another to say God created the Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago. The first is a spiritual concept, the second has been disproved by factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.
> 
> When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.
> 
> You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.
> 
> To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.
> 
> The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons.  Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.
> 
> As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any.  Why?  I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I think that is part of the mystery "
> 
> What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.
> 
> Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.
Click to expand...

Faith is faith.  Can't be proved or disproved.  Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Divine.Wind said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.
> 
> When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.
> 
> You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.
> 
> To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.
> 
> The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons.  Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.
> 
> As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any.  Why?  I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I think that is part of the mystery "
> 
> What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.
> 
> Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith is faith.  Can't be proved or disproved.  Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded.
Click to expand...

"
Faith is faith. Can't be proved or disproved. Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded."

Agreed 100%.  It is what it is. I find it contradictory that people who proudly profess their "strong faith" will then do everything they can to paint it as something other than faith.  What are they ashamed of? Being dishonest is more shameful than admitting faith, IMHO.


----------



## Boss

Divine.Wind said:


> Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.
> 
> The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons. Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.
> 
> As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any. Why? I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.



*Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.*

Well that's not true but apparently you're not understanding me. You have "evidence" the moon is made of rock. However, you've not examined and observed what's 10,000 feet below the surface of the moon, nor have you been to the moon to witness this for yourself. You said it best yourself when you stated, "I can accept as fact" ...that's a profession of faith in what you perceive to be factual. 

Then you make the statement "...without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe..."  Why without a doubt? What would be the reason God would need to prove something to you? I don't suppose you spend much of your weekends out in the back yard trying to prove to the ants that you have ESPN on cable. Why not? Without a doubt, you could! 

I often say that I *believe* in Spiritual Nature but that's not really true. To believe in something, means to have faith without proof. I have spiritual proof of Spiritual Nature. I realize a tangible benefit in connecting with Spiritual Nature in my everyday life. It has given me tremendous strength, courage and patience. It has helped me through some really dark times in my life and it has provided irreplaceable guidance. This is MY proof and it's all I need. So, you see, it't not a matter of faith for me, it has been  proven beyond any doubt.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *None of the things you listed would actually PROVE anything.
> Again... ALL evidence is subjective to the individual who evaluates it as such.* I look up in the sky and see a wondrous and breathtaking universe ...* It's not "proof" but I never claimed it was.*
> 
> 
> 
> Another dishonest reply.
> 1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> 
> Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> 
> You cumstain moron.
> 
> "Proof" is a disingenuous strawman barrier Creationc*y*sts erect since, although Science has lots of Evidence, it doesn't have "proof."
> So because Their VOODOO/DOGDO faiths also have no "Proof," they think they can call them "equal."
> NO! Science/Scientific theories have tons of Evidence, godS have None.
> Forget "proof": Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.​
> Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *1. All evidence is Not "subjective".
> 2. A Gun with fingerprints is Evidence.
> 3. DNA of a perpetrator is Evdience
> 4. A security video tape of the crime is Evidence.
> *
> Yes, all evidence IS subjective. A gun with fingerprints is evidence but it's subjective. It could've been planted to frame someone. The OJ Simpson jury is a good example of DNA evidence being subjective, the jury subjectively didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor. The same is the case for the security video or any other example you give. Evidence is always subjective, that's why we have juries of more than one.
> 
> *Try going into court and telling them/testifying "God told you who did it".
> That's NOT evidence, it's insanity.
> *
> All you have to do is ask yourself one question. Is it possible that someone might believe a person was told by God who did it? If that is a possibility at all, then evidence is subjective.
> 
> Proof is evidence establishing a fact but since all evidence is subjective, so is proof.
> 
> *Unlike science, you have No real Evidence.*
> 
> What you are really saying here is that you don't value my evidence as much as you value scientific evidence. You're actually proving my point, that all evidence is subjective.
> 
> *Not to mention there are many DIFFERENT godS with Different Creations myths.
> ergo, at least 75% of the world's population is wrong, no matter which/Witch god/no god.
> *
> Well, there are well over 100 abiogenesis theories, they can't all be correct. IF 75% are wrong then 25% are right, correct? How did you come to this conclusion? Based on what evidence?
> 
> *Science is demonstrable truth no matter your religion.*
> 
> No, it's not. In fact, science has been wrong far more times than it has been right. Science continuously challenges itself. It does not draw definitive conclusions. It continues to leave the door of possibility open in all cases. That's what science IS. I can give you an endless list of things science has gotten wrong dating back to Aristotle. New science is constantly coming along to replace old science.
> 
> Up until about 2009, every physics book in the world was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were they now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all said the universe is made up of mostly atoms. In your eyes, this would have been "demonstrable truth" but it was not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proof of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and only 4% is atoms. Whenever you draw conclusion, you have abandoned science for faith. Science can't do anything with a conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet none of the dark matter/energy has ever been found. Sounds to me like the invention of "missing mass" is what's wrong.
> 
> Why are you believing baseless science, but rejecting well founded evolutionary science?
> 
> If you have to invent first dark matter, then dark energy, that should be a hint that the physics is wrong.
> 
> Most of the current cosmology is assuming Hubble was correct. Methinks the trouble is there. We had to apply a relativistic adjustment to physics for high velocities. Hubble just might need such an adjustment also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 37:58  to 40:20
Click to expand...

?


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> ?




You asked for proof and I gave you proof.

And you are wrong about dark matter not being found. It has been found. It was actually found through mathematics by accident. Physicists couldn't rectify the amount of gravity in the universe with the amount of matter. We still don't know a lot about dark matter because we can't physically interact with it.


----------



## sealybobo

flacaltenn said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
Click to expand...

You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory.  God willing of course.


----------



## flacaltenn

sealybobo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory.  God willing of course.
Click to expand...


Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. Theories are just tools for bounding the brain work. 
If the Big Bang failed -- it would leave a gaping hole in the confidence that we have in understanding the origins of our Universe. 

On encountering fantastical "solutions" that so far exceeds human experience -- it doesn't matter if you believe or not. BUT if you can't TRULY wrap your mind around it -- You're believing it -- "on faith".  Physicists are some of the most "faithful" people on the planet.


----------



## sealybobo

flacaltenn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory.  God willing of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. Theories are just tools for bounding the brain work.
> If the Big Bang failed -- it would leave a gaping hole in the confidence that we have in understanding the origins of our Universe.
> 
> On encountering fantastical "solutions" that so far exceeds human experience -- it doesn't matter if you believe or not. BUT if you can't TRULY wrap your mind around it -- You're believing it -- "on faith".  Physicists are some of the most "faithful" people on the planet.
Click to expand...


I don't think if we discovered the big bang was wrong that it would leave a gaping hole in anything.  We would just understand better how the universe got started.

If you found out that our universe came out of a reverse black hole, would that change your life?  It wouldn't mine.  If you found out the universe we observe now is not the first or only universe would it change you?  Not me.  

Watch: Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law Explained

A *scientific theory* is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be _tested._

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. 

Scientific Theory vs Law – Science Journal – Medium


----------



## MarkDuffy

Divine.Wind said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But "evidence" is subjective. Tagging words onto it like "real" and "factual" only proves my point. You are making a profession of your faith  or lack of faith in evidence based on your subjective evaluation. You're not everyone and everyone doesn't value evidence the same.
> 
> It has not been "disproved" the Earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. I don't personally believe that but it hasn't been disproved and it can't be. You can believe the evidence shows this isn't true but that's your evaluation of the evidence. Others might evaluate the evidence differently or have other evidence to contradict it which you don't accept. This is precisely why I said, all evidence is subjective to the evaluation of the individual as such.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
> IMHO, God created the natural universe and all the laws within it.  We have brains.  My understanding is that we are expected to use them.  Since God created the universe and the laws within it, to study the universe and its laws is to study the divine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that but it's not what I said.
> 
> When you use a phrase like "factual evidence," what do you mean? Why not just say "evidence." You are qualifying specific evidence as being factual proof. The problem in science is, it cannot conclude factual proofs because it must remain open to possibility. We often say it but we say it because of psychology. It is our communicative way of raising our evidence to the unassailable level.
> 
> You have no "factual evidence" the earth wasn't created in 6 days or 6,000 years ago. You have evidence and you strongly believe that evidence to be true. That is the only fact. Now it so happens, I agree the evidence suggests the Earth is much older than 6,000 years and standard physics would seem to contradict the possibility of it being created in 6 days. But I cannot state this is an unassailable fact that can't be refuted because that's not how science works.
> 
> To me, there is an obvious variable missing in the consideration of evidence and that is "spiritual evidence." Science can't evaluate spiritual evidence, it is confined to physical evidence only. This doesn't mean spiritual evidence doesn't exist. Or, that spiritual evidence might supercede physical evidence. Therefore, a spiritual force could've create the Earth in 6 days and it could've made it appear to be much older than 6,000 years. I don't believe this personally because, why? What would be the purpose of creating Earth to appear much older? Why would it be constrained by a time table of 6 days? Why couldn't it have done it in one day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, by your standard, I have no "factual evidence" the Moon is made of rock.
> 
> The difference between us is that I can accept as fact scientific findings that have been repeatedly proved to be true from multiple sources and for multiple reasons.  Evolution and the Big Bang (including it's age) are two of those things.
> 
> As for "spiritual evidence", there isn't any.  Why?  I think that is part of the mystery since, without a doubt, God could have proved the existence of something beyond our natural universe without leaving us to take it only on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I think that is part of the mystery "
> 
> What mystery? Bill Cosby has us all trapped.in a huge JELLO mold laced with barbituates.
> 
> Prove me wrong. See how this works? I can play, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith is faith.  Can't be proved or disproved.  Anyone who claims to know either way is just a liar or deluded.
Click to expand...

God can be proved

He just has to give the media an interview with followup


----------



## MarkDuffy

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for proof and I gave you proof.
> 
> And you are wrong about dark matter not being found. It has been found. It was actually found through mathematics by accident. Physicists couldn't rectify the amount of gravity in the universe with the amount of matter. We still don't know a lot about dark matter because we can't physically interact with it.
Click to expand...

You claim there are no facts, no proof of anything. 

You gave me opinion I did not care to click on.

You are worthless. We are done.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for proof and I gave you proof.
> 
> And you are wrong about dark matter not being found. It has been found. It was actually found through mathematics by accident. Physicists couldn't rectify the amount of gravity in the universe with the amount of matter. We still don't know a lot about dark matter because we can't physically interact with it.
Click to expand...

This is all subjective.


----------



## Boss

MarkDuffy said:


> You claim there are no facts, no proof of anything.
> 
> You gave me opinion I did not care to click on.
> 
> You are worthless. We are done.



Well you asked for proof of what I said and I posted it but you refuse to click on it. It's just a YouTube video. 

I never claimed there are no facts or proof of anything. That's just a dumb ass interpretation of what I've said. Facts and proof are words, they have meanings. Science has a methodology. Very few (if any) things can actually be called "scientific fact" because science continues to ask questions and challenge it's findings. IF science concluded "facts" there would be an endless number of things science would've never discovered. This is why science uses "theory" even when it seems to be a fact. 

"Proof" is a subjective term. When you believe the evidence establishes a fact, you call it proof. I may not subjectively view the evidence the same as you, so I may not find proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

flacaltenn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory.  God willing of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. Theories are just tools for bounding the brain work.
> If the Big Bang failed -- it would leave a gaping hole in the confidence that we have in understanding the origins of our Universe.
> 
> On encountering fantastical "solutions" that so far exceeds human experience -- it doesn't matter if you believe or not. BUT if you can't TRULY wrap your mind around it -- You're believing it -- "on faith".  Physicists are some of the most "faithful" people on the planet.
Click to expand...

"Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. "


Where do you get this nonsense?  A "proof" is not "scientific".  A proof is merely a valid argument.

yes, a scientific theory is the highest level of respect obtainable by an explanation/answer to a scientific question.


----------



## flacaltenn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.
> 
> The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.
> 
> The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- *is AN IMMENSE leap of faith.* No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.
> 
> The Big Bang SIMPLE???  That's a riot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a good point. It is hard to believe. But it's a scientific theory which is the highest honor an idea can get. It might not be right. It wouldn't ruin our lives if we turned out to have it wrong and we won't kill over the big bang theory.  God willing of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. Theories are just tools for bounding the brain work.
> If the Big Bang failed -- it would leave a gaping hole in the confidence that we have in understanding the origins of our Universe.
> 
> On encountering fantastical "solutions" that so far exceeds human experience -- it doesn't matter if you believe or not. BUT if you can't TRULY wrap your mind around it -- You're believing it -- "on faith".  Physicists are some of the most "faithful" people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Actually a science PROOF is a higher honor than a theory. "
> 
> 
> Where do you get this nonsense?  A "proof" is not "scientific".  A proof is merely a valid argument.
> 
> yes, a scientific theory is the highest level of respect obtainable by an explanation/answer to a scientific question.
Click to expand...


A proof is closed complete explanation mathematically or otherwise. It means it's more unassailable than a mere "theory"..  You're gonna pull a groin muscle here. Think Newton. Think thermodynamics, Think semiconductor theory. Those are not "theories".. THOSE ------ are settled science.


----------

