Ben Stein Stumps Richard Dawkins.

[DriftingSand]

And before Eve was created there was no sin separating Adam from God either! Adam, a biblical archetype who represents all mankind in Genesis, was the only man to know what it's like to be without sin, in a state of physical perfection, and one with God in paradise.

Which brings up an interesting situation.

As you know Adam as the agent of original sin represents all mankind.
And mankind did not fall and become separated from God by sin through Adam's eating the forbidden fruit until AFTER Eve was created.

So if we go back chronologically to a time BEFORE Eve was created we have a period of time where Adam was in a heavenly state of physical perfection, without sin, in paradise and in spiritual oneness with God.

But even though Adam was without sin and one with God, God himself said that Adam was so "alone" it was "not good."

Gen 2: 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

So how could Adam have been so "alone" it was "not good" BEFORE he was separated from God by sin??????
God saw Adam was lacking a mate and created Eve, but how could Adam have been lacking anything while he was without sin and one with God??????

Now as you know, we will not have a mate in heaven, only sinless oneness with God.

Matthew 22: 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So who in their right mind would want to spend an eternity in heaven so "alone" it's "not good?"

Friends will keep you sane, Love could fill your heart, A lover can warm your bed, But lonely is the soul without a mate.
- David Pratt

Heaven will be no heaven to me if I do not meet my wife there.
Andrew Jackson

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.
- Isaac Asimov

The principle of "kind after kind" and "seed in itself" is established in the 1st Chapter Genesis. In a spiritual sense, Adam was complete where his relationship with God is concerned but from a fleshly sense, Adam was lacking a mate (the principle established in Genesis 1). Therefore, it would not be possible for Adam to procreate without a mate, Eve.

That's dodge!
Thank you.

You still can't explain how Adam could have been so "alone" it was "not good" BEFORE he was separated from God by sin, during the time he was without Eve but one with God!!!

Please see my earlier post. Question answered.

 

[DriftingSand]

Energy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics has PROVEN that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy always was, is today, and always will be the same total quantity, it can only change form.

Where did the energy come from? For what purpose did it exist?

Energy IS! It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither created nor destroyed.

Have you ever witnessed energy CREATING complex systems like universes or living cells? No?

 

[DriftingSand]

The funny thing is that is exactly what YOU believe!

No thing (God) created everything from nothing.

Now in science, everything is energy in some form and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So it was all the energy in the universe that went "bang" at the Big Bang, not nothing, because energy IS something!

You can believe that energy created a Universe and all organic life but you can't believe that intelligence had anything to do with it?

Can you demonstrate your hypothesis in a lab setting or are you basing your conclusion on pure conjecture? Have you ever seen energy create a Universe or have you ever seen inorganic materials morph into a living being?

Have you seen a snake talk or a rib turn into a girl?

The snake is Satan and I've met a few of his kids that speak eloquently. We're not talking about a "rib" that created anything. We're talking about witnessing energy create something. Apples/Oranges.

But you still didn't answer my questions. That's okay. They're hard questions. If you don't know just say so.

 

[edthecynic]

The principle of "kind after kind" and "seed in itself" is established in the 1st Chapter Genesis. In a spiritual sense, Adam was complete where his relationship with God is concerned but from a fleshly sense, Adam was lacking a mate (the principle established in Genesis 1). Therefore, it would not be possible for Adam to procreate without a mate, Eve.

That's dodge!
Thank you.

You still can't explain how Adam could have been so "alone" it was "not good" BEFORE he was separated from God by sin, during the time he was without Eve but one with God!!!

Please see my earlier post. Question answered.

Question dodged, not answered.That's okay. It's a hard question. If you don't know just say so.

 

[DriftingSand]

That's dodge!
Thank you.

You still can't explain how Adam could have been so "alone" it was "not good" BEFORE he was separated from God by sin, during the time he was without Eve but one with God!!!

Please see my earlier post. Question answered.

Question dodged, not answered.That's okay. It's a hard question. If you don't know just say so.

Sorry it was too difficult for you. Maybe another time.

 

[DriftingSand]

By the way. Has anyone ever seen energy create a complex system of ANY kind? Energy is often used by intelligent designers during the process of creating things (cars, guns, boats, and other complex machines) but I've yet to see energy create something out of the blue just for the heck of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Steven_R]

By the way. Has anyone ever seen energy create a complex system of ANY kind? Energy is often used by intelligent designers during the process of creating things (cars, guns, boats, and other complex machines) but I've yet to see energy create something out of the blue just for the heck of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Back in 1997 scientists created matter out of nothing when they collided two laser beams. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

Pretty cool, huh?

 

[DriftingSand]

By the way. Has anyone ever seen energy create a complex system of ANY kind? Energy is often used by intelligent designers during the process of creating things (cars, guns, boats, and other complex machines) but I've yet to see energy create something out of the blue just for the heck of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Back in 1997 scientists created matter out of nothing when they collided two laser beams. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

Pretty cool, huh?

Was a Universe formed? How about a creepy crawly living cell? What was the nature of this "matter?" Was it edible or just soot?

 

[Steven_R]

So your argument is matter can't be created out of energy and when it is it doesn't count?

Well, shit, I'm convinced.

 

[DriftingSand]

So your argument is matter can't be created out of energy and when it is it doesn't count?

Well, shit, I'm convinced.

So you're saying that a universe WAS created? Or are you not saying that?

 

[Steven_R]

I'm saying energy can, in point of fact, create matter. Scientists at Stanford saw and wrote a paper about it. You said that can't happen and that is why the Big Bang is a lie.

Well, if energy can create matter out of the blue, maybe your whole premise is wrong.

 

[DriftingSand]

I'm saying energy can, in point of fact, create matter. Scientists at Stanford saw and wrote a paper about it. You said that can't happen and that is why the Big Bang is a lie.

Well, if energy can create matter out of the blue, maybe your whole premise is wrong.

Where did I say that again? I asked a question and specifically asked if anyone has witnessed energy creating a universe or a living cell. I then asked what the nature of the matter was. So far ... none of my questions have been answered.

Would you say that energy and matter are intelligent enough to create a complex system out of the blue?

 

[thanatos144]

God exists and he loves all of you.....Also killing babies is wrong.

 

[DriftingSand]

Short version of a Christian vs Atheist debate:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKaC0r1xMV0]Epic Christian vs Atheist debate best ever - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

You can believe that energy created a Universe and all organic life but you can't believe that intelligence had anything to do with it?

Can you demonstrate your hypothesis in a lab setting or are you basing your conclusion on pure conjecture? Have you ever seen energy create a Universe or have you ever seen inorganic materials morph into a living being?

Have you seen a snake talk or a rib turn into a girl?

The snake is Satan and I've met a few of his kids that speak eloquently. We're not talking about a "rib" that created anything. We're talking about witnessing energy create something. Apples/Oranges.

But you still didn't answer my questions. That's okay. They're hard questions. If you don't know just say so.

The snake (the biblical talking snake), is of myth and legend. Your inability to make that distinction calls into question your ability to function in the rational world.

 

[Hollie]

Short version of a Christian vs Atheist debate:

That was short all right. Short on credibility.

You do a disservice to your religion with these formula, edited and canned YouTube videos.

They're amateurish in that their so phony and contrived.

 

[DriftingSand]

Short version of a Christian vs Atheist debate:

That was short all right. Short on credibility.

You do a disservice to your religion with these formula, edited and canned YouTube videos.

They're amateurish in that their so phony and contrived.

Sore loser!

 

[DriftingSand]

By the way Holly, is "energy" your god like it seems to be for everyone else?

 

[Hollie]

Short version of a Christian vs Atheist debate:

That was short all right. Short on credibility.

You do a disservice to your religion with these formula, edited and canned YouTube videos.

They're amateurish in that their so phony and contrived.

Sore loser!

Over what exactly?

It's laziness on your part to mindlessly cut and paste links to these silly YouTube videos. The one you linked to is amateurish and phony. It's heavily edited with the express purpose of furthering a fundamentalist agenda. It's almost as pointless as another of your goofy video "debates" wherein the only commentary was from the religious extremist. Any countering argument was completely removed.

It's not a debate when only a single perspective is presented. But that so often defines the religious extremist agenda. Claims to magic and supernaturalism are indefensible so the fundies resort to lies and tactics such as presenting a debate where only the extremist agenda is presented.

Yeah, is fraudulent, dishonest and unethical but it's a look into the world of the extremist.

 

[DriftingSand]

That was short all right. Short on credibility.

You do a disservice to your religion with these formula, edited and canned YouTube videos.

They're amateurish in that their so phony and contrived.

Sore loser!

Over what exactly?

It's laziness on your part to mindlessly cut and paste links to these silly YouTube videos. The one you linked to is amateurish and phony. It's heavily edited with the express purpose of furthering a fundamentalist agenda. It's almost as pointless as another of your goofy video "debates" wherein the only commentary was from the religious extremist. Any countering argument was completely removed.

It's not a debate when only a single perspective is presented. But that so often defines the religious extremist agenda. Claims to magic and supernaturalism are indefensible so the fundies resort to lies and tactics such as presenting a debate where only the extremist agenda is presented.

Yeah, is fraudulent, dishonest and unethical but it's a look into the world of the extremist.

The man who posted the video refers you to the full length debate SEVERAL times and even has a link. Not my fault that you chose to ignore the dude.