God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[abu afak]

I am pointing out creation science. One needs a creator to start life and the universe. It's only since the 1850s, the science of atheism has take root and we are exposed to its beliefs of no God nor gods, i.e. no creator. We have as evidence the Bible from God and it is all explained in Genesis and we find science backs up God created fully adult living creatures. They didn't start from eggs nor babies. We find that sexual reproduction can't happen then. Remember the triangle of membrane, metabolism, and reproduction Marshall mentioned? It backs up Genesis better than evolution.

"Creation Science" is an Oxymoron spouted by the oxygen Starved.

`

 

[james bond]

And unlike not knowing anything about Science, knowing nothing about the Bible will still let you run a Tech or Fortune 500 company instead of the '700 Club.' you dim wit.

The knowledge and skills required to run a tech or Fortune 500 company aren't found in the Bible. However, the Bible explains other things that are important and required in life such as origins, creations, how we got here, how the Earth was formed through catastrophism, in a rapid manner, and how and why the rock and fossil layers were mixed up by a global flood. It explains why 3/4 of the planet is water. Yet, the atheists and their atheist scientists will not accept this, but want a globally flooded Mars in the past when it could help them discover life was present in the past. It is hypocrisy of atheism and the hypocrisy of the science of atheism at its worst.

"Creation Science" is an Oxymoron spouted by the oxygen Starved.

One needs creation for the start of the universe and its spacetime. Oxygen also had to have a start in that environment. God and creation is the best theory to explain it and we find that kind of creation science backs it up.

 

[james bond]

So, yes. You have some notion of something you call a ''life spirit'' but you can't define it in any meaningful way. So this ''life spirit'' of yours is something you have invented and which apparently goes to heaven after you die. Yes, that assuages your fear of death and the unknown and it calms an emotional requirement that you live in fear and self-loathing because you are evil and base and carry original sin.

Good gawd, what a miserable existence.

Faith means different things to different people, and different people have different concepts of gods. The origins of life and of the universe are not determined by anyone's personal decision of what religion to follow. Science, including evolution, is based on objective evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone.

Life spirit is life itself. We are all living right now, but our bodies will die due to Adam's sin. You believe through faith in no God/gods that your life spirit will also die with no physical body. The Bible says that is not what happens. You spirit is whisked away immediately to the place of the dead where your spirit and most spirits will be asleep. Their spirits will be alive, but asleep like you when you go to sleep now. A few though will be suffering in pain and being burned because they were such evil people when they were living. Evil, to God, would mean blasphemy and putting false gods before the true God. Also, it could be due to being rich and not taking care of the poor and less fortunate with your wealth.

 

[abu afak]

So to summarize:
there is no Evidence of a god, and the only [illogical] deduction for his is..
"well then, how did...."
10,000 years and 10,000 gods with NO Evdience in sight.

`

 

[ding]

So to summarize:
there is no Evidence of a god, and the only [illogical] deduction for his is..
"well then, how did...."
10,000 years and 10,000 gods with NO Evdience in sight.

`

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.

Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.

 

[ding]

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.

Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.

That was already addressed.

You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

When you quarrel you aren't empathizing with the other guy.

 

[abu afak]

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.

Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.

That was already addressed.

You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

When you quarrel you aren't empathizing with the other guy.

14 words in the last post.
You're getting so wordy these day you ONE-LINE TROLL.
Get some content clown.
`

 

[ding]

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.

Totally false. The expectation of fairness comes from the evolution of empathy.

That was already addressed.

You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

When you quarrel you aren't empathizing with the other guy.

14 words in the last post.
You're getting so wordy these day you ONE-LINE TROLL.
Get some content clown.
`

The content was just fine. It has not been refuted.

 

[ding]

I only needed ten words there to defeat your argument.

 

[Hollie]

So, yes. You have some notion of something you call a ''life spirit'' but you can't define it in any meaningful way. So this ''life spirit'' of yours is something you have invented and which apparently goes to heaven after you die. Yes, that assuages your fear of death and the unknown and it calms an emotional requirement that you live in fear and self-loathing because you are evil and base and carry original sin.

Good gawd, what a miserable existence.

Faith means different things to different people, and different people have different concepts of gods. The origins of life and of the universe are not determined by anyone's personal decision of what religion to follow. Science, including evolution, is based on objective evidence, evidence which is the same for everyone.

Life spirit is life itself. We are all living right now, but our bodies will die due to Adam's sin. You believe through faith in no God/gods that your life spirit will also die with no physical body. The Bible says that is not what happens. You spirit is whisked away immediately to the place of the dead where your spirit and most spirits will be asleep. Their spirits will be alive, but asleep like you when you go to sleep now. A few though will be suffering in pain and being burned because they were such evil people when they were living. Evil, to God, would mean blasphemy and putting false gods before the true God. Also, it could be due to being rich and not taking care of the poor and less fortunate with your wealth.

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

Your claims to false gods vs. true gods are claims made by others with different gods. I see nothing that separates your claims to gods vs. the claims by others for their gods. Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, invented various gawds to explain what they didn't understand. Such projections of spirit worlds as delineated by the currently configured gawds are no exception. Specific religions merely evidence cultural bias, a predilection for organization, sanctioned approved behavior, etc. People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.

 

[james bond]

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature? What's missing?

We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.

I don't think science can explain. They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death. Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on after death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.

BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible. He says we live on after death.

 

[Hollie]

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature? What's missing?

We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.

I don't think science can explain. They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death. Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on after death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.

BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible. He says we live on after death.

Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.

BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.

 

[james bond]

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature? What's missing?

We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.

I don't think science can explain. They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death. Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on after death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.

BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible. He says we live on after death.

Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.

BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.

It's the atheist science that denies the existence of God and the afterlife by assumption. It cannot and will not accept God despite the scientific evidence. God and the Bible is the best theory to explain it all. Not the Antibible of evolution. Thus, the atheists are not saved. We know bad people and those who deny God's will will be punished. Our current life is punishment for Adam's sin, so the sinners will continue to be ruled forever in the afterlife as punishment by Satan.

 

[Hollie]

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature? What's missing?

We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.

I don't think science can explain. They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death. Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on after death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.

BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible. He says we live on after death.

Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.

BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.

It's the atheist science that denies the existence of God and the afterlife by assumption. It cannot and will not accept God despite the scientific evidence. God and the Bible is the best theory to explain it all. Not the Antibible of evolution. Thus, the atheists are not saved. We know bad people and those who deny God's will will be punished. Our current life is punishment for Adam's sin, so the sinners will continue to be ruled forever in the afterlife as punishment by Satan.

Actually, it is the religioner who presumes existence of the gods and some asserted afterlife by assumption. There is no scientific evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods, nor is there any evidence for your asserted afterlife of fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.

Your claims to antibibles, Satans and your willingness to live in fear is a sad existence. You make allusions to ''spirit realms'' you claim exists. How does anyone identify a spirit realm outside of the physical body? I believe you're unnecessarily ascribing your religious based fears and superstitions to matters you don’t understand.

Why would your gods punish those who don’t believe in them? That is is coercive and manipulative. That concept is, of course, what the writers of the Bible have claimed but we largely don’t know who the authors of the Bibles are and none of your gods were ever credited with direct communication of the Bible’s content.

Is there some perverse pleasure that the hyper-religious get from living in abject fear and worse, attempting to terrify children with their fears and superstitions?

 

[james bond]

You're rattling on about your invented spirit realms again. It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of our sentient nature. As with so much of your supernaturally based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "spirits". Physical nature and the universe provide no evidence for your alleged spirit realms.

What science article do you go by that gives us an incomplete understanding of our sentient nature? What's missing?

We know about death from our experience watching others die that we understand death.

I don't think science can explain. They can't even figure out the exact moment of birth nor death. Last year, one scientist came out and said he thinks the spirit lives on after death -- Afterlife BREAKTHROUGH: Why scientist claimed 'soul DOES live on after death'.

BTW, the last part about Christians (in the article) isn't their opinion, but what God says throughout the Bible. He says we live on after death.

Yes, and people see Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.

BTW, the gods say nothing in the Bibles. None of the gods had anyone take notation.

It's the atheist science that denies the existence of God and the afterlife by assumption. It cannot and will not accept God despite the scientific evidence. God and the Bible is the best theory to explain it all. Not the Antibible of evolution. Thus, the atheists are not saved. We know bad people and those who deny God's will will be punished. Our current life is punishment for Adam's sin, so the sinners will continue to be ruled forever in the afterlife as punishment by Satan.

Actually, it is the religioner who presumes existence of the gods and some asserted afterlife by assumption. There is no scientific evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods, nor is there any evidence for your asserted afterlife of fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.

Your claims to antibibles, Satans and your willingness to live in fear is a sad existence. You make allusions to ''spirit realms'' you claim exists. How does anyone identify a spirit realm outside of the physical body? I believe you're unnecessarily ascribing your religious based fears and superstitions to matters you don’t understand.

Why would your gods punish those who don’t believe in them? That is is coercive and manipulative. That concept is, of course, what the writers of the Bible have claimed but we largely don’t know who the authors of the Bibles are and none of your gods were ever credited with direct communication of the Bible’s content.

Is there some perverse pleasure that the hyper-religious get from living in abject fear and worse, attempting to terrify children with their fears and superstitions?

>>Actually, it is the religioner who presumes existence of the gods and some asserted afterlife by assumption. There is no scientific evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods, nor is there any evidence for your asserted afterlife of fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven.<<

No, it's based on historical documentation and the Christians have creation science behind them which is backed up by experimental science. I can accept that atheists won't believe in the afterlife because all we have are are people's explanations of what they saw and experienced with near-death experiences and one scientist's professional opinion.

>>Your claims to antibibles, Satans and your willingness to live in fear is a sad existence. You make allusions to ''spirit realms'' you claim exists. How does anyone identify a spirit realm outside of the physical body? I believe you're unnecessarily ascribing your religious based fears and superstitions to matters you don’t understand.<<

Antibible is only from me so I can accept that criticism, too, but it's one heck of a coincidence that evolution contradicts everything that God stated in the Bible.

I never made a claim that one can identify a spirit realm outside of a physical body, but it's based on NDE anecdotes and there could be evidence that a spirit realm exists. One scientist, Dr. Sam Parnia has been researching.

>> Why would your gods punish those who don’t believe in them? That is is coercive and manipulative. That concept is, of course, what the writers of the Bible have claimed but we largely don’t know who the authors of the Bibles are and none of your gods were ever credited with direct communication of the Bible’s content.<<

Because it goes against the one command made of God to us of Noah's generation. Why would God come up with and go through all the trouble to save us?

Basically, you reap what you sow.

The science is look for the evidence. We have the evidence of a global flood which was the punishment that Adam and Eve's generation received. God had one command for Adam and Eve. Their descendants had the same command, but to believe that a Savior was coming. Post-Jesus, it is belief that he save us. Christians don't go out of their way to announce this for nothing.

I can't help it if you do not have faith in God, but decided on no God/gods. That's the free will God gave us.

>>Is there some perverse pleasure that the hyper-religious get from living in abject fear and worse, attempting to terrify children with their fears and superstitions?<<

How can it be religious based fears? What am I fearful of? How do we terrify children?

God fearing person refers to enjoying the devout feeling towards God. We teach children in order to diffentiate between good and evil and have them exerience the devout feeling towards God. Atheists so not have this devout feeling because of denial and probably deny it out of fear.

 

[Hollie]

No, it's based on historical documentation and the Christians have creation science behind them which is backed up by experimental science. I can accept that atheists won't believe in the afterlife because all we have are are people's explanations of what they saw and experienced with near-death experiences and one scientist's professional opinion.

There is no historical (perhaps you mean hysterical) documentation of so-called creation scientists doing experimentation and lab study. As you know, none of the creation ministries do research and none submit to peer reviewed journals. Preconceived beliefs and a built-in bias are a requirement of the “statement of faith” that is a prerequisite for the creation ministries Here’s one example, but they’re all same.

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

As to some claimed afterlife, there is no data to support any such thing.

Antibible is only from me so I can accept that criticism, too, but it's one heck of a coincidence that evolution contradicts everything that God stated in the Bible.

Yes, I understand the silly "antibible" is some perverse invention of yours. The term has no meaningful definition, no practical application and no standard of interpretation. Super!

Here is your Bible'ology lesson for the day: the gods said nothing in the Bible. You make the same mistakes and write the same false claims again and again. The writers of the Bibles are largely unknown. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles. While it may be that you have a pathology to make false statements about the Bibles, that doesn't suggest others should hesitate to identify those falsehoods.

Your fondness for anecdotal evidence would suggest you give credence to Bigfoot, Nessie, alien abduction, Leprechauns hoarding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, etc. Super! It's unfortunate that Charlatans seem to find a willing audience to accept claims to all forms of unsupported, nonsensical claims.

Because it goes against the one command made of God to us of Noah's generation. Why would God come up with and go through all the trouble to save us?

Basically, you reap what you sow.

The science is look for the evidence. We have the evidence of a global flood which was the punishment that Adam and Eve's generation received. God had one command for Adam and Eve. Their descendants had the same command, but to believe that a Savior was coming. Post-Jesus, it is belief that he save us. Christians don't go out of their way to announce this for nothing.

There is no reason to accept that any gods made any commands. As we know, the writers of the Bibles are largely unknown. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles.

There is no evidence of a global flood that occurred just a few thousand years ago. If you choose to believe in angry, emotive gods who despised their very "creation" that's fine, but you shouldn't presume to foist your fears and superstitions on others.

 

[james bond]

There is no historical (perhaps you mean hysterical) documentation of so-called creation scientists doing experimentation and lab study. As you know, none of the creation ministries do research and none submit to peer reviewed journals. Preconceived beliefs and a built-in bias are a requirement of the “statement of faith” that is a prerequisite for the creation ministries Here’s one example, but they’re all same.

They were peer reviewed by regular science before the 1850s. Creation science is being more accepted again because of the evidence of a global flood. People who believe in God never stopped doing experiments and lab study. It's you who are ignorant and useless. Since creation scientists cannot be peer reviewed by the religious atheist scientists, they peer review each other's work. Atheist scientists have gone to consensus as to what is best theory which could lead to error.

As to some claimed afterlife, there is no data to support any such thing.

How do you explain all the eyewitnesses to Jesus' Resurrection then? It is the foundation of Christianity. Again, you miss the obvious and are blinded by you know who
. We will all be resurrected. It's probably the basis for all the living dead stories popular today as the non-believers become the living dead.

Here is your Bible'ology lesson for the day: the gods said nothing in the Bible. You make the same mistakes and write the same false claims again and again. The writers of the Bibles are largely unknown. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles. While it may be that you have a pathology to make false statements about the Bibles, that doesn't suggest others should hesitate to identify those falsehoods.

First, I caught you in a bald faced lie . Many people know the Apostles -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are familiar with Genesis that many think was written by Moses. God said he did in the Bible and what went in the Bible has been well studied and researched by its scholars. It's still being done today. It's probably even more rigorous as it includes creation science even though it isn't a science book. Real science backs it up. I would not and could not make up a claim like that. Probably, the most difficult to find evidence for is the age of the Earth. Can we just write you off as extremely ignorant of science?

Your fondness for anecdotal evidence would suggest you give credence to Bigfoot, Nessie, alien abduction, Leprechauns hoarding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, etc. Super! It's unfortunate that Charlatans seem to find a willing audience to accept claims to all forms of unsupported, nonsensical claims.

I would say all of evolution is anecdotal. It starts with a story of uniformitarianism and is continued on by evolution's Moses in Charles Darwin. You even have made up a geological timeline that has nothing to do with time, but is named after location. That is evidence right there that it is anecdotal and wrong.

As for the rest, it's more your irrational thinking putting lies upon creation scientists. Doesn't Bigfoot fit more of your humans came from apes hypothesis? It looks like a furry animal and is bipedal. Of course, it could be footage of a human wearing a disguise. This is an indictment against you speaking without thinking and putting myths upon creation science when evolution is more anecdotal and mythological.

 

[Hollie]

They were peer reviewed by regular science before the 1850s. Creation science is being more accepted again because of the evidence of a global flood. People who believe in God never stopped doing experiments and lab study. It's you who are ignorant and useless. Since creation scientists cannot be peer reviewed by the religious atheist scientists, they peer review each other's work. Atheist scientists have gone to consensus as to what is best theory which could lead to error.

What is ‘’regular science’’ as opposed to irregular science? I understand you use the 1850’s as a demarcation because that is a timeline when chemistry, biology, the physical sciences began to flourish and as we know, “On the Origin of Species” was first published on Nov 24, 1859.

Actually, there is no reliable evidence of a global flood just a few thousand years ago. And, ID’iot creationer science is a laughable joke that has repeatedly been stripped of any credibility.

Actually, ID’iot creationers do no lab work and do noy publish in peer reviewed journals. The charlatans you claim do lab work are a frauds. The Disco’tute, creation.com, the ICR, etc., are little more than a repository for hacks and charlatans. Please identify the research papers submitted for peer review by the well-known hacks at the Disco’tute, creation.com, the ICR,. What reference material published by the Disco’tute, creation.com, the ICR hacks are used by any college or university?

Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.

As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.

How do you explain all the eyewitnesses to Jesus' Resurrection then? It is the foundation of Christianity. Again, you miss the obvious and are blinded by you know who
. We will all be resurrected. It's probably the basis for all the living dead stories popular today as the non-believers become the living dead.

I don’t explain it because there were none.

First, I caught you in a bald faced lie . Many people know the Apostles -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are familiar with Genesis that many think was written by Moses. God said he did in the Bible and what went in the Bible has been well studied and researched by its scholars. It's still being done today. It's probably even more rigorous as it includes creation science even though it isn't a science book. Real science backs it up. I would not and could not make up a claim like that. Probably, the most difficult to find evidence for is the age of the Earth. Can we just write you off as extremely ignorant of science?

You caught yourself in an admission of ignorance regarding your Bible’ology. The so-called Gospel of Mark dates from somewhere around AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke somewhere around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascription of “Gospels” to those noted, all four are anonymous and there is no evidence that they actually wrote anything. Further, the “Gospels” were written decades after the events and none were written by eyewitnesses.

The gods never “said” anything in the Bibles.

Science does not ‘’back up’’ the Bibles. That’s a standard claim for ID’iot creationers who are never able to ‘’back up’’ their specious claims. Nothing in the any of the Bibles suggests that any gods spoke directly to the writers of the Bibles. While it may be that you have a pathology to make false statements about the Bibles, that doesn't suggest others should hesitate to identify those falsehoods.

In this post, as with others, you betray the fundamental conflict with which you personally struggle. Caught between what you know to be true as a functioning human being in the real world and what you wish were true as a sectarian advocate, you find yourself incapable of maintaining a line of argument that is both consistent and conforms with your dogma.

I would say all of evolution is anecdotal. It starts with a story of uniformitarianism and is continued on by evolution's Moses in Charles Darwin. You even have made up a geological timeline that has nothing to do with time, but is named after location. That is evidence right there that it is anecdotal and wrong.

As for the rest, it's more your irrational thinking putting lies upon creation scientists. Doesn't Bigfoot fit more of your humans came from apes hypothesis? It looks like a furry animal and is bipedal. Of course, it could be footage of a human wearing a disguise. This is an indictment against you speaking without thinking and putting myths upon creation science when evolution is more anecdotal and mythological.

ID’iot creationers would be expected to say that evolution is anecdotal because science confounds ID’iot creationer dogma.

You might want to explain how every research / teaching university is a party to the vast science conspiracy theory that you insist exists. Unfortunately for ID’iot creationers, their conclusions rest on the fallacy of equivocation. They wishe to somehow denigrate the conceptual and factual status of biological evolution, and yet they can not do so using the operational definition of “theory” and “fact.” So, instead they are reduced to invent a category of “phact” that is superior to “scientific fact,” which they labels as “The Gods Did It.”

Facts are the data of nature. Theories are the conceptual frameworks that explain them. There are (for example) many “origin of species” theories, and we judge among them based on which theory explains the most facts in the most parsimonious way. But regardless of which theory turns out to eventually be true, the facts they are meant to explain do not go away.

 

[james bond]

Facts are the data of nature. Theories are the conceptual frameworks that explain them. There are (for example) many “origin of species” theories, and we judge among them based on which theory explains the most facts in the most parsimonious way. But regardless of which theory turns out to eventually be true, the facts they are meant to explain do not go away.

I'm tired of explaining over and over again to someone who doesn't understand science and instead repeats falsities of evolution and treats them as facts. Evolution isn't even a good theory.

The facts disprove evolution. No one has or ever will observe evolution. There are no transitional fossils despite all your talk about a common ancestor. Thus, the common ancestor is a lie. We can't have evolved because our population numbers are too low for the time that evolutionists give. There is no evidence for fish to turn into animals with legs, feet, and lungs in order to come onto land. It is also scientific fact that chemicals do not organize themselves into living things through natural processes. Or a lens, cornea, and optic nerve cannot accidentally assemble themselves into a functioning vision system. We do not even observe the parts of plants or animals come together.

If evolution is based on facts, then name one thing that proves evolution?