Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

Repsectfully, it does.
My atheism is based soley on what I can prove emperically. And I have seen plenty of evidence to show that not only doesnt god exist but more importantly he cant exist. For if he did, we would not be here.

YOU are on crack if you think man-induced global warming is a hoax...

Either you trust science or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick the evidence that suits your ideology, or you're just another wanker.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/

So that begs the question...for the past milllion years was man also to blame for the warming?

What I dont trust are the liberal "scientists" from the university in PA. who were caught lying about man made warming.

Read "Climatism!" (as I did) and then try to dispute the findings and the science...with FACTS, not emotional drivel.

Short of popping off every nuke ever made, man can do nothing to permanantly affect this planet. (and after a few hundered years the earth would even recover from that)

So you can stop with the "sky is falling" routine chicken little, I aint buying it.

Hi,
You are neither right nor wrong, other than by your subjective reasoning. Forget not the fence, that permits absence from 'either or'.
This is crucial.
The 'ONUS' for validation is ALWAYS on the proposer's back.
Once more I propose, with conclusive absolution, that 'EVERTHING' (Not Shouting - merely emphasising) is "SUBJECTIVE", and, unless 'evidencially' proven otherwise, remains moot.

The 'Earth' is NOT "Hung" upon 'Nothing' - "NOTHING" doesn't exist.

Hi Oliver.
'Supernatural' implies, by definition, 'above or beyond nature'...
What is not "Natural"?

Everthing is 'Natural' because it exists, surely?

"MAN" is a 'natural' product, therefore produced "BY" nature (common process), therefore all that 'man' produces is VIA that same process.
EVERYTHING is Natural.

Deep thought is impossible if your thoughts are shallow.
Not that yours are, btw.

Errr sorry, I don't intend to read a book on climate written by an electrician... I accept only peer reviewed research conducted by trained, competent scientists. That's my criteria for admissible evidence.

What is yours? What do you consider admissible evidence?

Think about it. Who would you rather believe? An electric engineer with an MBA from the University of Chicago or 90% of climatologists, including of course the UK and US National Academies of Science?

Here's your chance to prove your dedication to the scientific quest for truth.

Let's not argue about semantics. Man-made climate change is a reality.

Sure. For the sake of clarity, let me explain that I use the phrase 'natural world' to mean 'our universe'. Everything in the universe is natural, as I see it. There is nothing supernatural in it. IMO, if gods or anything supernatural exist, there are outside this universe.

Simplistic view perhaps...

I wasn't.
I agree that climate-change is, largely, the result of human activity.
I only direct the pre-cursor as being 'naturally' induced.
Given that 'man' is an indulgent, egocentric parasitic species - It stands to reason it will devour its environment without cautious consideration or due diligence.

Am I wrong?

OK, was there once, too.
Our Universe, is relative, ONLY, if you restrict your mindset to 'our universe'.
I am of an 'infinite' (Omniverse-thinking) ilk, and pain at the thought of dimensional restrictions, though.
Good to chat (textually). Cheers!

When the scientists have a liberal political agenda and are caught lying I say. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

I didnt ask you to comment on the author, I asked you to dispute the science he in his book.



You have already proved what your dedication is...and its not the truth. You wont read it because the author is an intelligent educated person capable of a high level of learning because he majored in engineering and business? Meaning he is incapable of knowing ANYTHING else?
I think you hat is to tight my friend.

Ok,

On the other hand we have the big bang hypothesis: Billions or trillions or bunch of zillions years ago the entire universe was formed by a small particle that can be detected solely with our sophisticated instruments. Whoa!

Well, lets buy it from one minute.

Microwaves background, distance from star to star, etc. prove nothing but are just part of great speculations. Those waves can come from somewhere else, no one knows their origin, so to say that were the primeval waves and so forth is nothing but speculations and more speculations.

The only way to confirm how valid the big bang hypothesis could be, is by its supporters showing in the sky the location of such primeval starting point, and showing as well the direction of the "expansion", this is to say, in what way we are we going.

This requirement is essential to determine if this hypothesis is true.

The explanation given using a balloon that has marks on its surface and is inflated so each point sees to every other point going away, and that because this observable fact we can't know the starting point and the direction of the expansion, well, sorry but the example of the balloon is a complete stupidity.

It is a complete stupidity because it implies that the whole galaxies, stars, planets, asteroids, weather satellites, etc. are floating over the "outer" surface of the universe... ha ha ha (sorry, but I told you that such explanation given by the fans of the big bang hypothesis was a stupidity, and stupidities make me laugh)

So, forget the stupidity of the balloon's "explanation" and let's be real about it.

The big bang hypothesis can't be verified by any means, so it is just a belief.

Now, between the belief of Creation and the belief of the big bang hypothesis, hey! Creation is the winner... no doubt about it.

If you disagree with Creation and you support the belief of the big bang hypothesis, the only way to prove the validity of such a hypothesis, is by pointing in the cosmos its origin, its starting point. So, tell us the name of the star or constellation that guide us to such a starting point of the beginning of the universe, and also point the star or constellation that is the direction to which we are going according to the expansion of the universe.

No other evidence is needed. Until then, Creation still is the winner.

Okay so by default, the entire US scientific establishment is lying, because what??? 'cause you believe some dude lied? Like who??? The East Anglia story? That is a hoax. No lie in there whatsoever, except yours...

No, you're right. Mankind WILL suck up hydrocarbons from the ground till the last drop....

I just hoped that for once we could act a bit smarter than your average baboon.

God said "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End" (Revelation 21:6)
See, he didn't need to be created, because he's always existed..

He always existed in people's imagination, but for only about two thousand years.
Before that, humans had many mythological gods and goddesses. Even some kings declared themselves god.

That is a fallacy. A human-being said that 'god' said that, and then another person (approx 1300-1500 yrs later) wrote it down. Anything more is speculation-based.