Afterlife….How About For You?

[Hollie]

I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings.

I don't capitalize william for the same reason. Too many williams created by human beings.

The name of the Christian god is not God.

I'll capitalize

Assuming, of course, that you’re not a government school nihilist…y'know, and believe human beings are nothing but accidental constructions of mud and dust.

For those of us who believe otherwise.....

1.We learned about reward and punishment early on, perhaps via this catechism:

He's making a list
He's checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town

He sees when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you been good or bad
So be good for goodness sake

2. At some point later in life it became a more serious question, whether there is something after we shuffle off this mortal coil, and might give some of us pause. Of course, not those victims of government school indoctrination, which does everything possible to marginalize, ridicule, erase, any links to religious traditions. For those folks, it’s government we must worship, and the best part is that the great god government is there to reward all no matter if they’re good or bad. Kind of removes that burden of responsibility.



3. But…”Christian beliefs about life after death are based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection are part of God’s divine plan for humankind. Through his death on the cross, Jesus pays the penalty for mankind's sin and mankind's relationship with God is restored. This is called atonement. Christians believe that three days after the crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead and he once again appeared to his disciples. This is taken to mean that Jesus’ sacrifice was a victory over sin and death. Although physical death still happens, those who believe in Christ and live good lives will be given eternal life in Heaven.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zn6ncdm/revision/3.

And if you read Dante, you have a darn good picture of the damage you will face, depending on how bad you are. Although there was a bar called ‘The Ninth Circle,” in the Village, that was pretty OK……

I always gravitated to the view of the Argentine poet, Jorge Louis Borges: "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library"



4. The Old Testament appears to be clear, if subtle, on the issue of an afterlife.

In telling Abraham, the first Jewish person, of his future, there is this:

15.15 As for you, You shall go to your fathers

“Often, in describing death, the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible use the phrase “gathered to one’s kin.” Here, the Torah describes Abram’s eventual death as Abram going “to your fathers.” For reasons I will explain at length, the Torah never directly declares there is an afterlife. But throughout the Torah, an afterlife is clearly implied. Sarna notes, “In whatever form, the phrase certainly originates from the belief in an afterlife in which one is reunited with one’s ancestors irrespective of where they are buried.” Dennis Prager, “Genesis”



Make you feel better?

Why would it?

DEad is dead there is nothing after

So you best make the most of each and everyday you wake up ans draw breath

"Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if a god was really omniscient wouldn't he know if a person is only pretending?

You just admitted that you think god can be duped by mere mortals

The two gifts accorded mankind are free will and intelligence.


God didn't create robots.


In Genesis, we have an occasion where God loses an argument to one of his creations....

I refer to Prager's book, "Genesis."


"GOD IS MORALLY CHALLENGED—A FIRST IN HUMAN HISTORY

18.24 What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Abraham argues for sparing the entire city of Sodom if fifty innocent people live there.

18.25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Abraham not only argues with God, he declares God wrong—“Far be it from You”—if God should kill the innocent along with the guilty. The Hebrew words chalila l’cha may also be translated, “Don’t you dare do such a thing . . .” It is astonishing that anyone would feel he could speak to a deity in this way. Such a statement is unique among all bibles and perhaps all holy literature. But it is the essence of the Torah and of later Judaism that humans may have so real a relationship with God that we can actually speak this way to Him. This negotiation between Abraham and God led Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to title his book on Abraham and the history of Jewish lawyers Abra- ham: The World’s First (But Certainly Not Last) Jewish Lawyer.

18.25 (cont.) Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

Abraham was arguing a principle made famous thousands of years later by the English jurist William Blackstone. Known as “Blackstone’s Formulation” and still adhered to today in Western legal thought, it postulated “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”4 What is as incredible as Abraham’s arguing with God is his assumption that God is just. It is incredible because we know of no other people at that time or be- fore who made such an assumption about their god(s). This assumption changed history. Never had a human being challenged a god or gods on moral grounds. This is one of many reasons the Torah is as different from pre-Torah thought as life is from non-life, and it is therefore one of the many reasons the Torah—like the emergence of life from non-life—can best be explained by attributing it to God.

Equally amazing, God was in no way upset with Abraham for arguing with Him, or even for the manner (verse 25) in which Abraham spoke to Him. God responded to Abraham’s moral argument by agreeing with him.



He prefaced his next request with a statement of humility.

18.28 What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Will You destroy the whole city for want of the five?” As a bargaining technique, Abraham did not say “forty-five.” He wanted to empha- size the number “five” hoping a compassionate God would not destroy an entire city because just five fewer good people resided there.

18.28 (cont.) And He answered, “I will not destroy if I find forty-five there.”

18.29 But he spoke to Him again, and said, “What if forty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.” Abraham kept lowering the number of innocent people. And God kept agreeing.

18.30 And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I go on: What if thirty should be

found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

18.31 And he said, “I venture again to speak to my Lord: What if twenty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the twenty.”



18.32 And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I speak out this last time: What if ten should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten.”

Nevertheless, a small group, as Abraham’s appeal suggests, can make a moral impact. In fact, most of the good that has ever even achieved has been initiated by small groups. Examples include the extraordinary group of founders of America, the handful of Christians who brought about the abolition of slavery, the dissidents in the Soviet Union and other tyrannies who helped bring down evil regimes, and the moral impact of the tiny group of people known as Jews.

In addition to a preoccupation with justice, Abraham demonstrated a concern for humanity in general (starting with the extraordinary hospitality he exhibited at the chapter’s opening). The people of Sodom are not his family, his people, his ethnicity, or his religion, yet their fate weighed on him."


God, in fact, appears to appreciate his creation exhibiting this sort of behavior and initiative.

So your god would congratulate an atheist for pretending to believe in him and then reward said atheist with eternal life in heaven ?

He kind of sounds like an idiot to me if he is so easily fooled

My 'God' is capitalized.

Didn't you learn that in government school?


Bet you can't quote where I said "god would congratulate an atheist for pretending to believe in him and then reward said atheist with eternal life in heaven."

Either you aren't the swiftest of students, or you believe that lying is a valid manner of advancing your argument.
Which is it?


To correct you, I've said that there is a determination for reward and punishment in an afterlife.

I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings.

So tell me why are you using Pascal's wager for an argument if the god you believe in can see right through it?

if you really believe that your god is omniscient wouldn't you be telling people that those who would make Pascal's wager are doomed because their ruse would be immediately discovered by a god that knows all?

Or do you really believe people should lie about believing in a god?

"I don't capitalize the word god because there have been many many gods created by human beings."

You know very well you're lying.....and that's the answer to my earlier question....you believe lying is acceptable.

The reason you don't capitalize the term is to show the sort of disrespect for the concept, and you've been trained to do.

I am not lying.

Humans have worshiped many gods.

The one you worship is just one in a very long list of gods.

And I told you why I don't capitalize the word god. It has nothing to do with your beliefs.

And FYI my mother was extremely religious so no one taught me not to capitalize the word god. I decided to do that of my own free will

There is only one God, it is the Judeo-Christian one that served as a foundation for the folks who created this nation.

You really didn't learn anything in that government school, did you.



Out of pity, I'll provide this:

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

No religion should be taught in public schools

And YOU say there is only one god and you are hardly a credible source

I for one have seen no proof that any gods exist

One is being taught now, you fool: militant secularism, neo-Marxism.

The only religion banned is that of our Founders.



1. "Third-Grade Teacher Has Students Write ‘Get Well’ Cards To Cop Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal A third-grade teacher at a public school in New Jersey is under fire after she encouraged her students to write letters to notorious convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who recently fell ill in prison.

Marylin Zuniga teaches language arts and social studies at Forest Street School in Orange, N.J."

Third-Grade Teacher Has Students Write ‘Get Well’ Cards To Cop Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal



2. - School's Nation of Islam Handout Paints Founding Fathers as Racists


"School's Nation of Islam Handout Paints Founding Fathers as Racists
The teacher also told Sommer that her son was not supposed to take the Nation of Islam handout home. It was supposed to stay in the classroom. That bit of news caused her great alarm.
“The fact that students were cautioned against allowing their parents to see anything is deeply troubling,” West told me. “The only reasonable explanation is they don’t want parents to know what it is their children are learning.”

3. Under pressure from transgender activists, progressive politicians, teacher unions, and the education establishment, and despite parents’ opposition, America’s public schools are capitulating to ideologues and implementing the radical transgender agenda with full force.
...regardless of biological sex, .... Activists want every child, from kindergarten on, to learn that “sex” is something “assigned at birth” rather than a biological reality. They want children to think that individuals get to choose their own “gender identity” (not limited to male or female), and that everyone else must affirm that “gender identity” as true.


...nothing that parents (or teachers) can do to prevent the schools from imposing policies designed to indoctrinate children with gender ideology.

In public education, the “deep state” describes a coalition of various groups – including teachers’ unions, progressive advocacy groups, major corporations, and philanthropists --that work together to promote the progressive worldview..."
America’s Public Education System: The Ultimate Deep State





4. The National Education Association approved a new "business item" expressing support for abortion access during its annual conference in Houston.

"[T]he NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person's right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people," the resolution states. "The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade."

The NEA is the largest teachers' union in the U.S. with more than 3 million members. It collected nearly $400 million from American educators in 2018, according to federal labor filings. The union is also one of the most politically active in the country, spending $70 million on politics and lobbying in 2017 and 2018. Nearly all of the union's political action committee spending went to Democrats during the midterm cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


NEA's 2019 adopted New Business Items (NBIs) reveal what savvy teachers have known for decades: state and national teachers' unions are essentially the political action committee of the Far-Left,"
Largest U.S. Teachers' Union Endorses Abortion




5. the 20-minute video being shown in American classrooms entitled The

Story of Stuff; a catchy title to appeal to grade school kids. This piece of anti-capitalist propaganda was

put together by Greenpeace member Annie Leonard.







6. NYC schools allow kids to go on #ClimateStrike
“TEN YEARS. We have ten years to save the planet,” Mayor Bill de Blasio cautioned in a tweet. “Today’s leaders are making decisions for our environment that our kids will have to live with. New York City stands with our young people. They’re our conscience. We support the 9/20 #ClimateStrike.”

Legions of adolescent activists across the globe are expected to demand immediate action to combat climate change in advance of a major UN conference on the issue next week.

As long as mom and dad sanction their principled truancy, absent kids won’t have attendance records dinged, the DOE said.

The September 20th event will feature Sweden’s “Climate Crisis” sweetheart, 16-year old Greta Thunberg.

Teen activist and Swedish sensation Greta Thunberg, who recently docked her zero-emissions sailboat in New York, will speak at the event which will snake its way through lower Manhattan to Battery Park.

Kids with parental permission to attend will be granted excused absences from school, Education Department officials tweeted Thursday.

The infamous “Green New Deal” will be promoted as well.

The New York City climate strike is backed by more than 100 environmental and political activist groups and other institutions, including New York Communities for Change, The New School and the Sierra Club.

The protesters’ demands include a “Green New Deal” that would end fossil fuel extraction and move the nation onto entirely renewable energy sources by 2030. Green New Deal policies have been backed by the likes of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Personally, if I were one of the kids, I might argue about going to school at all. After all, if the Earth only has 10 more years before we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to spend the time having fun or spending quality time with family?

On the other hand, if the New York City school officials were really invested in solving the climate crisis, wouldn’t they emphasize science and math? Perhaps keeping the kids in school and having them conduct experiments or perform calculations would inspire an interest in real climate science.

One theory that seems to prove true and is certainly consistent with what is happening with the New York City schools: When global problems are emphasized by locals, serious local matters are being ignored.

Case in point: New York state test results for third- through eighth-grade public school students are out, and the results are underwhelming.

Statewide, more than half the kids flunked yet again: Just 45.4% were deemed proficient in reading and 46.7% in math. In the city, 47.4% passed the reading test, while 45.6% got by in math.

Think the problem’s skimpy funding? Sorry: In 2017, the Empire Center’s E.J. McMahon reported in May, New York shelled out 89% more per kid than the national average. And that gap has been growing fast: In 1997, per-pupil outlays here were just 45% above average.

…In the city Thursday, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza tried to spin the results positively. The pass rate in English, they noted, is up 0.7 percentage points — and three whole points in math.

“Growth counts for something,” Carranza insisted.

Huh? That paltry uptick is what they’re proud of? Even though more than half the kids bombed? Please.

Notably, kids in the one category of public schools de Blasio and Carranza (and their union pals) don’t run — i.e., the charters — beat their counterparts in the regular schools by more than 10 percentage points in both English and math.

At least the kids won’t be flying private jets to attend the event. That makes them substantially less hypocritical than the celebrities who will be indoctrinating them during the Manhattan event.



NYC schools allow kids to go on #ClimateStrike



7. “Fifth-grade teacher defends wearing 'Columbus was a murderer' shirt to school” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/16/fifth-grade-teacher-defends- earing-columbus-was-a/
8. “Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist
The Seattle Public Schools Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee (ESAC) released a rough draft of notes for its Math Ethnic Studies framework in late September, which attempts to connects math to a history of oppression.” Seattle Public Schools Say Math Is Racist

9. “The sex and gender revolutionaries have officially taken over the Austin Independent School District without firing a single shot. In spite of overwhelming opposition from parents and pastors, the district’s trustees voted early Tuesday morning to implement a pornographic sex education policy that includes instruction on anal sex and how to place a condom on an erect penis.

The father of a fifth grader demanded to know who gave the school district the right to teach his child how to have anal and oral sex.” Texas School District Implements Pornographic Sex Education Policy

10.” It appears the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), which held a solidarity rally this Saturday afternoon, …. seemed more like a convention of far-left radicals than the image of clean-cut teachers the CTU would like to project. Thousands of red-shirted Chicago Teachers Union members flooded into Chicago’s aptly named Union Square Park at noon today to demonstrate for solidarity and workers’ rights. Protesters embraced radical revolutionary imagery, wearing shirts with Che Guevara on them and holding signs emblazoned with the “iron fist.”

Occupy Chicago and anarchist groups as well as the Progressive Labor Party, International Socialists, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and others stood alongside teachers chanting for solidarity…” Radical left coalesces around Chicago Teacher protest


More



In the vid, teacher’s union with the Socialist iron fist banner…







11. “Racial Literacy Curriculum,” elementary schools in Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Missouri, and Illinois have all adopted the mind-blowing, politically-charged brainwash that they tout as education. Topics for Kindergarten to Grade 8 include: implicit bias, white privilege, intersectionality, LGBTQ issues, racism as a “primary institution of the US,” and other such leftist agenda talking points.” EXCLUSIVE: New Leftist ‘Racial Literacy Curriculum’ Brainwashing Elementary School Children

12. The Pollyana Curriculum…nationwide

“Beginning in Grade 3, the Pollyanna "Racial Literacy Curriculum" asks students to become activists in order to achieve leftist goals. The 3rd Grade chapter is entitled "Stories of Activism – How One Voice Can Change a Community." The expected result is for students to understand "how we can be agents of communal, social, political, and environmental change."

…Pollyanna takes leftist activism to new heights, fabricating an image of a racist America that children are taught to rebel against.

By Grade 8,after nine years of acute indoctrination, the children are ready to fight on behalf of leftists in America. "tudents will set commitments for rectifying current social ills, such as learning and planning how to carry out anti-racist activism and/or social advocacy in their communities and/or to improve their everyday lives." The 8th Grade chapter is entitled "Racism as a Primary 'Institution' of the U.S. – How We May Combat Systemic Inequality." EXCLUSIVE: Leftist Activism Is A Requirement Of New Elementary School Curriculum



13. “Minnesota ‘Teacher of the Year’ takes knee during National Anthem at NCAA title game” Minnesota ‘Teacher of the Year’ takes knee during National Anthem at NCAA title game | The College Fix

14. "School in Brooklyn Hands Out “Drag Queen in Training” Stickers to 4-Year-Olds” School in Brooklyn Hands Out “Drag Queen in Training” Stickers to 4-Year-Olds

15. “Teacher: “No Regrets” for Desecrating American Flag in Classroom” Teacher: “No Regrets” for Desecrating American Flag in Classroom

What gods are central to this religion you say is being taught in public school?

The great god, government.


Children are taught to worship Gaia, mother earth.......on the day of Lenin's birthday.

Gee I guess I missed that class because I am no fan of the fucking government either but you are.

Funny how the atheist (me) is critical of all government while the believer( you) is a fan of government.

Seems to me you are a little confused about who is actually indoctrinated here

No vulgarity.

Fuck fuck fuck

Yeah, it looks you were not privileged enough to be sent to Parochial school.
Yes, the education was better than public schools.

I even kept the same book from 7th grade and used it in public school 9th grade.

The book? American Civics. Check it out sometime.

Publisher? Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.


Yes, there is a God that created this world, and you denying this doesn't make it not so.

And you believing doesn't mean it is so

Reason and experience say otherwise.

there is no reason to believe in anything without empirical proof

So you believe in neither global warming nor evolution?


Interesting.

We have empirical proof that evolution occurs.

Darwin's finches for example.

And we have more than enough proof that humans are capable if impacting the environment

It does no such thing.


1. "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches." "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," p. 10. by National Academy of Sciences
Pretty good example of how Darwin's theory may have begun as a scientific theory, but is now no more than ideology. Darwin's finches are an instance not of speciation, but of variation within a population.

2. Darwin studied different finch species on the Galápagos Islands, later attributing the differences in beak size and feeding habits amongst these birds to evolution. Thirteen species live on the Galápagos Islands themselves and one species on Cocos Island, some 600 kilometers to the northeast. Although these birds are classified into 14 different species, they closely resemble one another, possessing similar body shapes, colors, and habits. According to the National Academy of Sciences book, these birds evolved from a single species that came from South America. Darwinists have been portraying these birds as an example of evolution by means of natural selection, and the best-known proof of evolution!

3. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that the emergence of new species by means of natural selection is a very slow process, which is why it cannot be observed, but only inferred. But in an article in the April 1953 edition of Scientific American magazine, the ornithologist David Lack claimed that the evolution of the birds on the Galápagos had taken place in the recent past, and that this could even be seen as proof of differentiation between species.

4. Peter Grant and his wife Rosemary Grant, two researchers who first went to the Galápagos Islands in 1973, with the aim of observing the effects of evolution on the finches, and carried out detailed studies and observations in the following years. They are thus remembered as experts on Darwin's finches. Peter Grant, in fact, suggested that the evolution of the Galápagos finches was still going on. Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, October 1991, pp. 82-87

5. The Grant's studied individual members of the medium ground finch species on the Galápagos for years, and regularly monitored some 20,000 finches across several generations, kept careful records of both their beak size, and of the weather....rainfall...on the island. The amount of rain is of vital importance for the finches, which feed on seeds. In years when rain is plentiful, the finches can easily find the seeds they need to grow and reproduce. In years of drought, however, the number of seeds produced by plants is limited and may not be enough; as a result some finches die of starvation.

6. After a drought period, the average beak was approximately half a millimeter, or 5%, larger in 1977 compared to 1976. Taking this as their starting point, the researchers suggested those finches which fed solely on small seeds were weeded out, while those with beaks capable of breaking and opening larger and harder shells survived.

In an article in the journal Scientific American published in October 1991, Peter Grant declared that this research was direct proof of evolution. According to Grant, 20 selection events were sufficient to turn the medium ground finch into the large ground finch; if it is assumed that there is a drought every 10 years, then such a change could happen in as little as 200 years. Grant renewed his claims in subsequent articles, insisting that finches had verified Darwinism and proved that natural selection caused living things to evolve. Peter R. Grant, B. Rosemary Grant, "Speciation and Hybridization in Island Birds," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351, 1996, pp. 765-772

7. But hold on..... With the rain there was an abundance of seeds, and the beak size in medium ground finches returned to its previous value to before the drought of 1977. This astonished evolutionists, who were expecting regular growth in beak size. In short, the findings show that there is no such thing as evolutionary change. Average beak size sometimes rises above a fixed value according to the seasons and sometimes falls-in other words, it fluctuates. As a result, there is no directional change.

Just as the English peppered moth population varied with the air pollution in the Industrial Revolution....the finch population varied with rainfall.

8.The 1999 booklet published by the National Academy describes Darwin's finches as "a particularly compelling example" of the origin of species. The booklet goes on to explain how the Grants and their colleagues showed "that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches," and that "if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years." Rather than mention that selection was reversed after the drought, producing no long-term evolutionary change, the booklet simply omits this awkward fact. Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution", pp. 174-175; See also National Academy of Sciences, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences", Second Edition, Washington DC, 1999

The above, and more detail, found here: http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php





Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival, the first of The Science Network's annual Beyond Belief symposia, held from November 5–7, 2006 at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, was described by the New York Times, as "a free-for-all on science and religion," which seemed at times like "the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told." A Free-for-All on Science and Religion," George Johnson, New York Times, Section F, Page 1, November 21, 2006

“Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.” Darwin worked with no knowledge of genetics, but in terms of today’s science his educated guess was exactly right. Darwin’s finches (subfamily Geospizinae) exist in 14 or 15 monophyletic species—monophyletic meaning that all species of Galápagos finches evolved from one species. This happened two million or more years ago. Darwin’s Finches - The American Scholar

But after the drought, birds with smaller beaks flourished again, and the average beak size of the population returned to normal. No net evolution had occurred. No matter; Darwin’s finches became an icon of evolution that is still featured in most biology textbooks.

Darwin's Finches: The Hype Continues | Evolution News

Every few years we are treated to glowing news stories about how Darwin's iconic finches are still evolving that, as usual, are full of hype.

evolutionnews.org

Variation via genetic mutation.

It is not too much of a leap when one extends the time frame to billions of years to say that those mutations will result in 2 different species especially since a very small percentage of variance in the genome will result in 2 entirely different species

"It is not too much of a leap..."


Now it's 'a leap'.....no longer the need for provable evidence?


You ran from that quickly enough.


. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.



...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."



...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.

Once again we may never have the empirical evidence because the fossil record is and always will be incomplete. The ability to obtain viable DNA is also another obstacle.

I see it as analyzing patterns and extrapolating data.

I understand how over billions of years that enough genetic variation can occur so as to give rise to 2 separate species.

I find it harder to believe that a supreme being snapped his fingers and magically produced every single life form on the planet

Neither evolution nor global warming are examples of science.

Let's leave it at that.

I never said they were

I said there is evidence that genetic variation occurs naturally and we know that a very small percentage of variation is all that is needed to differentiate species.

And I said we have evidence that humans can have an effect on the environment.

Denying that 7 billion people are capable of impacting the environment is daft

You know nothing of the sort.


For example, you don't know that nearly every variation in D

Well I know how to write complete sentences.


And yes I do know the genetic variation between species as it is easily obtainable.

The difference in the genome between humans and chimpanzees is only about 1%.

Is it possible that over many millions of years that both random mutations and environmental forces resulted in that 1% difference?

I see it as plausible as a theory.

I see no proof that a god snapped his fingers and magically produced both the universe and all the life in it

Don't worry....I can fill in your lacunae.....


Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.



But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:



a. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.



b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/



So....not only do changes tend to rebound back to the original conditions...but if they aren't tiny alterations....they kill the organism.





"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

1. Cutting and pasting from someome’s blog is rather pointless when there is no supporting evidence for the claim.
2. Richard C. Francis is a freelance science writer.

There are abundant examples of speciation.

Observed Instances of Speciation




Berlinski is another Disco’tute hack.

https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/05/24-david-berlinski.html

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

Have you realized yet that your cut and paste "quote mining" is all the same cut and paste "quote mining" that has already been refuted as fraudulent?

 

[Meriweather]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

 

[Blues Man]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

 

[Newtonian]

Assuming, of course, that you’re not a government school nihilist…y'know, and believe human beings are nothing but accidental constructions of mud and dust.

For those of us who believe otherwise.....

1.We learned about reward and punishment early on, perhaps via this catechism:

He's making a list
He's checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town

He sees when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you been good or bad
So be good for goodness sake

2. At some point later in life it became a more serious question, whether there is something after we shuffle off this mortal coil, and might give some of us pause. Of course, not those victims of government school indoctrination, which does everything possible to marginalize, ridicule, erase, any links to religious traditions. For those folks, it’s government we must worship, and the best part is that the great god government is there to reward all no matter if they’re good or bad. Kind of removes that burden of responsibility.



3. But…”Christian beliefs about life after death are based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection are part of God’s divine plan for humankind. Through his death on the cross, Jesus pays the penalty for mankind's sin and mankind's relationship with God is restored. This is called atonement. Christians believe that three days after the crucifixion, God raised Jesus from the dead and he once again appeared to his disciples. This is taken to mean that Jesus’ sacrifice was a victory over sin and death. Although physical death still happens, those who believe in Christ and live good lives will be given eternal life in Heaven.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zn6ncdm/revision/3.

And if you read Dante, you have a darn good picture of the damage you will face, depending on how bad you are. Although there was a bar called ‘The Ninth Circle,” in the Village, that was pretty OK……

I always gravitated to the view of the Argentine poet, Jorge Louis Borges: "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library"



4. The Old Testament appears to be clear, if subtle, on the issue of an afterlife.

In telling Abraham, the first Jewish person, of his future, there is this:

15.15 As for you, You shall go to your fathers

“Often, in describing death, the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible use the phrase “gathered to one’s kin.” Here, the Torah describes Abram’s eventual death as Abram going “to your fathers.” For reasons I will explain at length, the Torah never directly declares there is an afterlife. But throughout the Torah, an afterlife is clearly implied. Sarna notes, “In whatever form, the phrase certainly originates from the belief in an afterlife in which one is reunited with one’s ancestors irrespective of where they are buried.” Dennis Prager, “Genesis”



Make you feel better?

Moses wrote both Genesis and Job. In the Genesis account about Abraham offering up hls son Isaac, it is evident that he believed in the resurrection:

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tested,+ as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son+— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring* will be through Isaac.”+ 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way.+

[Note the emotional ellipsis at the end of verse 17.]

Abraham had faith in Jehovah who promised him that his seed/offspring would be through Isaac (Genesis 21:12). Yet, Isaac had not yet married or had children and Abraham knew once a young man died he could not later marry and have children. Therefore, Abraham had to believe in the resurrection.

Note that the Torah was not written yet at Abraham's time nor at Job's time. Yet, while Job questioned whether a dead man could live again, it is evident that he also believed in the resurrection - not because of reading this in the Bible but because he knew Jehovah (1 John 4:8 - God is love).

If one were to quote Job 14:12 out of context, one would think he did not so believe, but reading the context clarifies this:

Job 14:12-15
Man also lies down and does not get up.+
Until heaven is no more, they will not wake up,
Nor will they be aroused from their sleep.+
13 O that in the Grave* you would conceal me,+
That you would hide me until your anger passes by,
That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!+
14 If a man dies, can he live again?+
I will wait all the days of my compulsory service
Until my relief comes.+
15 You will call, and I will answer you.+
You will long* for the work of your hands.

So Job knew Jehovah would long for those He loved - the work of his hands and that he would be called forth from the grave (Hebrew sheol).

See Malachi 3:16; Hosea 13:14.

Daniel confirmed those asleep in the dust will be resurrected:

Daniel 12:2
And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt.

 

[Newtonian]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

Jesus died, Yet there is evidence of his rulership in God's kingdom since Isaiah 2:2-4 is being fulfilled now among God's people who give their sole allegiance to the government of God (aka God's kingdom) with Jesus as anointed King.

While on the United Nations 'Isaiah wall' this verse is quoted - the UN has not been able to fulfill people of all nations no longer going to war.

But Isaiah 2:4 is being fulfilled - God's people who are of all nations "learn war no more." Only God's kingdom could have accomplished this miracle.

 

[Blues Man]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby even though she had no plans of actually having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

Jesus died, Yet there is evidence of his rulership in God's kingdom since Isaiah 2:2-4 is being fulfilled now among God's people who give their sole allegiance to the government of God (aka God's kingdom) with Jesus as anointed King.

While on the United Nations 'Isaiah wall' this verse is quoted - the UN has not been able to fulfill people of all nations no longer going to war.

But Isaiah 2:4 is being fulfilled - God's people who are of all nations "learn war no more." Only God's kingdom could have accomplished this miracle.

confirmation bias

 

[Newtonian]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby even though she had no plans of actually having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

Jesus died, Yet there is evidence of his rulership in God's kingdom since Isaiah 2:2-4 is being fulfilled now among God's people who give their sole allegiance to the government of God (aka God's kingdom) with Jesus as anointed King.

While on the United Nations 'Isaiah wall' this verse is quoted - the UN has not been able to fulfill people of all nations no longer going to war.

But Isaiah 2:4 is being fulfilled - God's people who are of all nations "learn war no more." Only God's kingdom could have accomplished this miracle.

confirmation bias

Bias - who me?

Seriously, check out the documentation at the United States National Holocaust Museum:

Search Results

www.ushmm.org

For example:

Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany: From the 1890s to 1945

The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses for persecution. Learn about the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany before and after the Nazi rise to power.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

"The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution because they refused, out of religious conviction, to swear loyalty to a worldly government or to serve in its armed forces. Jehovah's Witnesses also engaged in missionary activity to win adherents for the faith. The Nazis perceived the refusal to commit to the state and efforts to proselytize as overtly political and subversive acts. Unlike Jews and Roma (Gypsies), whom the Nazis targeted for perceived racial reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses had the option to avoid persecution and personal harm by submitting to state authority and serving in the armed forces. Since such submission would violate their religious beliefs, the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to abandon their faith even in the face of persecution, torture in concentration camps, or death."

 

[Blues Man]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby even though she had no plans of actually having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

Jesus died, Yet there is evidence of his rulership in God's kingdom since Isaiah 2:2-4 is being fulfilled now among God's people who give their sole allegiance to the government of God (aka God's kingdom) with Jesus as anointed King.

While on the United Nations 'Isaiah wall' this verse is quoted - the UN has not been able to fulfill people of all nations no longer going to war.

But Isaiah 2:4 is being fulfilled - God's people who are of all nations "learn war no more." Only God's kingdom could have accomplished this miracle.

confirmation bias

Bias - who me?

Seriously, check out the documentation at the United States National Holocaust Museum:

Search Results

www.ushmm.org

For example:

Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany: From the 1890s to 1945

The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses for persecution. Learn about the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany before and after the Nazi rise to power.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

"The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution because they refused, out of religious conviction, to swear loyalty to a worldly government or to serve in its armed forces. Jehovah's Witnesses also engaged in missionary activity to win adherents for the faith. The Nazis perceived the refusal to commit to the state and efforts to proselytize as overtly political and subversive acts. Unlike Jews and Roma (Gypsies), whom the Nazis targeted for perceived racial reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses had the option to avoid persecution and personal harm by submitting to state authority and serving in the armed forces. Since such submission would violate their religious beliefs, the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to abandon their faith even in the face of persecution, torture in concentration camps, or death."

So proof of moral convictions of a group of people is the same a proof that god exists?

People throughout history have chosen to die for their beliefs that is not proof of anything but their personal convictions

 

[Meriweather]

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

I am speaking about grammatical use and Biblical translations. "Expect" has a different definition than wish. Even today, one of the lesser definition of hope is 'reasonable confidence'. That is the more accurate modern-day translation of the original Greek/Latin used in the Bible. My comment was meant to be informative, not something to argue about. You may find it worth researching.

Some might read the Bible, come across the English "hope" and conclude it is something people wish for, but that was not the intent of the original author. He meant something that can be looked forward to with reasonable confidence...i.e., like someone expecting a baby. True, not all pregnancies end with a live birth, but even so there is reasonable confidence that it shall.

 

[Blues Man]

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

I am speaking about grammatical use and Biblical translations. "Expect" has a different definition than wish. Even today, one of the lesser definition of hope is 'reasonable confidence'. That is the more accurate modern-day translation of the original Greek/Latin used in the Bible. My comment was meant to be informative, not something to argue about. You may find it worth researching.

Some might read the Bible, come across the English "hope" and conclude it is something people wish for, but that was not the intent of the original author. He meant something that can be looked forward to with reasonable confidence...i.e., like someone expecting a baby. True, not all pregnancies end with a live birth, but even so there is reasonable confidence that it shall.

The expectation of the imaginary is naught but a wish

I can say I expect a blue unicorn with a red horn to visit me tonight

In no sane world would anyone say that is anything but delusion

 

[Newtonian]

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby even though she had no plans of actually having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

An expectation is no better than a wish

I think most would agree that expecting a baby is far different from wishing for a baby.

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

Jesus died, Yet there is evidence of his rulership in God's kingdom since Isaiah 2:2-4 is being fulfilled now among God's people who give their sole allegiance to the government of God (aka God's kingdom) with Jesus as anointed King.

While on the United Nations 'Isaiah wall' this verse is quoted - the UN has not been able to fulfill people of all nations no longer going to war.

But Isaiah 2:4 is being fulfilled - God's people who are of all nations "learn war no more." Only God's kingdom could have accomplished this miracle.

confirmation bias

Bias - who me?

Seriously, check out the documentation at the United States National Holocaust Museum:

Search Results

www.ushmm.org

For example:

Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany: From the 1890s to 1945

The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses for persecution. Learn about the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany before and after the Nazi rise to power.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

"The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution because they refused, out of religious conviction, to swear loyalty to a worldly government or to serve in its armed forces. Jehovah's Witnesses also engaged in missionary activity to win adherents for the faith. The Nazis perceived the refusal to commit to the state and efforts to proselytize as overtly political and subversive acts. Unlike Jews and Roma (Gypsies), whom the Nazis targeted for perceived racial reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses had the option to avoid persecution and personal harm by submitting to state authority and serving in the armed forces. Since such submission would violate their religious beliefs, the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to abandon their faith even in the face of persecution, torture in concentration camps, or death."

So proof of moral convictions of a group of people is the same a proof that god exists?

People throughout history have chosen to die for their beliefs that is not proof of anything but their personal convictions

I was responding to a poster on thread title - proof that Jesus was resurrected. God did not die - Jesus died. And I gave you the prophecy - did you read it at Isaiah 2:2-4? For example "learn war no more?"

We give our sole allegiance to God's government/kingdom with Jesus anointed as King by God. This is one of the laws of that King (see Matthew 5:44). If Jesus is not ruling us - who else could accomplish this miracle? As I posted, the UN wanted to accomplish this - that is why Isaiah 2:4 is quoted on its Isaiah wall. Has the UN been able to accomplish that noble goal?

Simply, no human government can sustain peace for decades or stop nations warring against one another. Only God's Kingdom can and has among people of all nations who give their sole allegiance to that government and its living King.

 

[james bond]

I have never seen the big bang be called fact.

It is the best theory we have based on our observations.

But then consider the fact that we have only observed about 5% of the matter and energy that comprises the universe you have to admit that the big bang even if it is the theory that best reflects our observations is not adequate.

Unlike some, I see no need to attribute the origins of the universe to a god simply because we as human beings may be incapable of every understanding the process.

You are right big bang is a theory, but a weak one. Even the scientists who believe it don't put much stock in it because it violates the laws of physics and the evidence of the CMB does not follow.

The best theory would be that there was a beginning and a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, the atheist scientists claim the supernatural does not exist in nature, but this isn't true. We see and interact with God's breath practically every day. While there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Before that, abiogenesis was called spontaneous generation, but it was disproved.

Even the dark energy and dark matter are newer hypothesis to follow no God. It's biased science and that's why evolution and evolutionary thinking and history are false. I've compared both evoution and creation.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion in the last sentence. Thus, the empirical proof you want comes after death.

Just as it is your hope there is an afterlife.

I know there is an afterlife, but only have evidence such as Earth, the universe, and everything in it is here and we have life or life spirit as God's breath to present to non-believers. Once life spirit is gone, then it is gone and can't return to this life. I suspect it gets the life spirit gets taken away very rapidly and goes to Hades or the place of the dead where most people end up sleeping waiting for the end times. I think a few of the bad ones start suffering even in Hades.

 

[Newtonian]

Truie

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

I am speaking about grammatical use and Biblical translations. "Expect" has a different definition than wish. Even today, one of the lesser definition of hope is 'reasonable confidence'. That is the more accurate modern-day translation of the original Greek/Latin used in the Bible. My comment was meant to be informative, not something to argue about. You may find it worth researching.

Some might read the Bible, come across the English "hope" and conclude it is something people wish for, but that was not the intent of the original author. He meant something that can be looked forward to with reasonable confidence...i.e., like someone expecting a baby. True, not all pregnancies end with a live birth, but even so there is reasonable confidence that it shall.

True. For example: our hope is that Isaiah 2:2-4 will be fulfilled among all people on earth in the near future. The timing cannot be proven, but the hope is proven by the fact that people of all nations learn war no more now - and this is well documented. Sadly, we are only a minority - but that was foretold as well: Matthew 7:13,14.

 

[Newtonian]

I have never seen the big bang be called fact.

It is the best theory we have based on our observations.

But then consider the fact that we have only observed about 5% of the matter and energy that comprises the universe you have to admit that the big bang even if it is the theory that best reflects our observations is not adequate.

Unlike some, I see no need to attribute the origins of the universe to a god simply because we as human beings may be incapable of every understanding the process.

You are right big bang is a theory, but a weak one. Even the scientists who believe it don't put much stock in it because it violates the laws of physics and the evidence of the CMB does not follow.

The best theory would be that there was a beginning and a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, the atheist scientists claim the supernatural does not exist in nature, but this isn't true. We see and interact with God's breath practically every day. While there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Before that, abiogenesis was called spontaneous generation, but it was disproved.

Even the dark energy and dark matter are newer hypothesis to follow no God. It's biased science and that's why evolution and evolutionary thinking and history are false. I've compared both evoution and creation.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion in the last sentence. Thus, the empirical proof you want comes after death.

As I know you realize, proof already exists - you will probably find the following brochures giving scientific evidence of creation encouraging:

Origin of Life (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Since God created life, it is no wonder that God can and will resurrect the dead back to life (Acts 24:15).

 

[Newtonian]

Once again we understand how reproduction works.

So the expectation of the result of a known process is very different from the expectation of something of which there is no proof of existence.

You expect to live in some eternal afterlife with absolutely no proof that anyone who has lived before you is experiencing an afterlife.

Now if a virgin said she was expecting to have a baby with no intention of ever having sex that would be more in line with your expectation of an afterlife

I am speaking about grammatical use and Biblical translations. "Expect" has a different definition than wish. Even today, one of the lesser definition of hope is 'reasonable confidence'. That is the more accurate modern-day translation of the original Greek/Latin used in the Bible. My comment was meant to be informative, not something to argue about. You may find it worth researching.

Some might read the Bible, come across the English "hope" and conclude it is something people wish for, but that was not the intent of the original author. He meant something that can be looked forward to with reasonable confidence...i.e., like someone expecting a baby. True, not all pregnancies end with a live birth, but even so there is reasonable confidence that it shall.

The expectation of the imaginary is naught but a wish

I can say I expect a blue unicorn with a red horn to visit me tonight

In no sane world would anyone say that is anything but delusion

Blues man - interesting you would choose blue rather than green unicorns! Is that just coincidence?

Just a corny joke.

 

[james bond]

The expectation of the imaginary is naught but a wish

I can say I expect a blue unicorn with a red horn to visit me tonight

In no sane world would anyone say that is anything but delusion

In terms of existence, even that which is only imaginary such as the unicorn, still exists in the mind. (If it's only in one person's mind and affecting his life negatively, then that's different. It's mental illness.)

However, Christianity and Jesus is not a delusion because we have the historicity of Jesus. We have physical evidence of the Resurrection. If someone can disprove that, then Christianity would be destroyed. What weird to me are the people who believe in billions of years old Earth and universe when nothing can exist that long. For example, we see galaxies, stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids collide, explode, or speed away never to be seen again practically every day. We even have black holes that destroy everything that gets inside the event horizon. Thus, your billions of years old theory sounds like delusion to me. Even rocks and fossils don't last that long; it's common sense. We have synthetic rock and that cracks and crumbles. We have fossils with soft tissue still remaining. Even the billions of years old coal and diamond still have plenty of carbon-14 remaining so they can be radiocarbon dated to 10,000 years or so.

 

[james bond]

As I know you realize, proof already exists - you will probably find the following brochures giving scientific evidence of creation encouraging:

I read part of it quickly, so may be wrong, but are you saying life came from amino acids such as in the Miller-Urey experiment? Perhaps peptides formed?

For one, the presence of water would dissolve amino acids. It's ironic that water which is necessary for life defeats the formation of proteins.

If so, then there's a lot to discuss but that should be discussed in the S&T forum. I think I may have posted something on it already if I can find it.

ETA: Anyway, I'm done with Blues Man as most atheists are a waste of time. They have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Satan.

 

[Hollie]

I have never seen the big bang be called fact.

It is the best theory we have based on our observations.

But then consider the fact that we have only observed about 5% of the matter and energy that comprises the universe you have to admit that the big bang even if it is the theory that best reflects our observations is not adequate.

Unlike some, I see no need to attribute the origins of the universe to a god simply because we as human beings may be incapable of every understanding the process.

You are right big bang is a theory, but a weak one. Even the scientists who believe it don't put much stock in it because it violates the laws of physics and the evidence of the CMB does not follow.

The best theory would be that there was a beginning and a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, the atheist scientists claim the supernatural does not exist in nature, but this isn't true. We see and interact with God's breath practically every day. While there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Before that, abiogenesis was called spontaneous generation, but it was disproved.

Even the dark energy and dark matter are newer hypothesis to follow no God. It's biased science and that's why evolution and evolutionary thinking and history are false. I've compared both evoution and creation.

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion in the last sentence. Thus, the empirical proof you want comes after death.

Just as it is your hope there is an afterlife.

I know there is an afterlife, but only have evidence such as Earth, the universe, and everything in it is here and we have life or life spirit as God's breath to present to non-believers. Once life spirit is gone, then it is gone and can't return to this life. I suspect it gets the life spirit gets taken away very rapidly and goes to Hades or the place of the dead where most people end up sleeping waiting for the end times. I think a few of the bad ones start suffering even in Hades.

There’s nothing about the Big Bang that violates the laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics as we know them operate all that way back to Planck time, just an instant before the expansion of the universe.

Your “…because I say so” comment about scientists not believing on the Big Bank theory is not convincing.

Now... angels with wings and fat, naked babies playing harps are rather minor players in the universe. Their relevance to the operation of the universe are nominally less even than that of leprechauns, fairies or jinn; entities that are said to intervene in human circumstances on a regular basis. An omnipotent creator god, however, is “a whole 'nother” proposition.

The potential effects of an omnipotent creator god should be even easier to detect than those of fat, naked babies playing harps. In fact, were such a being to exist, one might even expect its operation to be obvious. And that is even a regularly explicit claim by religionists... that the existence of god is "obvious."

If so, why has science proven so incapable of demonstrating such a god's effects? It is absurd to claim that science is incapable of "proving" the existence of gods, for anyone with a half-formed cerebral cortex can provide a long list of potential evidences for such a being. And I do not mean ambiguous references in the bibles. I mean things like a flashing neon sign on the surface of the moon announcing that the gods live.

It is the source of profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that god has less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" the gods, it has certainly eliminated evidences for various gods one at a time.

 

[Meriweather]

The expectation of the imaginary is naught but a wish

This makes no sense. People do not expect the imaginary. I am not even sure they hope or wish for what is imaginary.

 

[Meriweather]

I can say I expect a blue unicorn with a red horn to visit me tonight

Sure, you can say it. But do you expect it?