baddog1 wrote:xingu wrote:Real Life wrote:Invoking science at every turn is foolish and pretentious. You want to sound intelligent. 'Give me the science'.
I'd expect that from someone who holds religious nonsense over science.
xingu: I started a separate thread (so as not to further derail this one) related to your (and others) assertions and invite you to participate.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=104770
If you will read carefully my assertions are not for proof of a God but proof of a Biblical story found in Genesis. You and Real say you believe this story based on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove it. All I'm asking for is some type of evidence to support the story you say you believe in.
My next question is why would you abandond reason and logic to believe in a story that is so obviously false. Just because it's written in the Bible?
xingu wrote:
If you will read carefully my assertions are not for proof of a God but proof of a Biblical story found in Genesis. You and Real say you believe this story based on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove it.
What evidence do you assert 'disproves' the creation story in Genesis?
real life wrote:xingu wrote:Real Life wrote:Invoking science at every turn is foolish and pretentious. You want to sound intelligent. 'Give me the science'.
I'd expect that from someone who holds religious nonsence over science.
Can you scientifically prove where you were last Tuesday?
Can you scientifically prove what you ate for dinner on Sunday?
Can you scientifically prove that your grandmother wore earrings?
You want to invoke science for everything, but you do not understand it's limits, xingu.
To you, science is god. It is omniscient and can answer all.
Science is not God and I don't consider science God.
Nor do I think science is like your God-all knowing. The nice thing about science is they know they don't know everything and put a great deal of effort to try to gain as much knowledge as they can. As one says, the more you learn the more you understand how little you know.
In religion you just have to read a few verses of Genesis and you think you know more than the sum total of scientific knowledge.
real life wrote:xingu wrote:
If you will read carefully my assertions are not for proof of a God but proof of a Biblical story found in Genesis. You and Real say you believe this story based on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove it.
What evidence do you assert 'disproves' the creation story in Genesis?
Do your own homework. It's out there and you know it. Don't ask stupid questions.
So you can't support your claim?
xingu wrote:real life wrote:xingu wrote:Real Life wrote:Invoking science at every turn is foolish and pretentious. You want to sound intelligent. 'Give me the science'.
I'd expect that from someone who holds religious nonsence over science.
Can you scientifically prove where you were last Tuesday?
Can you scientifically prove what you ate for dinner on Sunday?
Can you scientifically prove that your grandmother wore earrings?
You want to invoke science for everything, but you do not understand it's limits, xingu.
To you, science is god. It is omniscient and can answer all.
Science is not God and I don't consider science God.
Nor do I think science is like your God-all knowing. The nice thing about science is they know they don't know everything and put a great deal of effort to try to gain as much knowledge as they can. As one says, the more you learn the more you understand how little you know.
In religion you just have to read a few verses of Genesis and you think you know more than the sum total of scientific knowledge.
Do you understand why requiring 'scientific proof' of historical events is a misuse of science?
real life wrote:So you can't support your claim?
If were educated in science you would know that I can.
Now go learn some science and quit bothering me.
xingu wrote:real life wrote:xingu wrote:
If you will read carefully my assertions are not for proof of a God but proof of a Biblical story found in Genesis. You and Real say you believe this story based on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove it.
What evidence do you assert 'disproves' the creation story in Genesis?
Do your own homework. It's out there and you know it. Don't ask stupid questions.
xingu expects one to read his mind. Interesting really. Scientifically speaking.
Reading minds? Nope. Won't try it.
My wife plays a game each morning with me.
It's called 'Guess what Mood I'm in Today'.
I have never won that game.
Talking to you two is like talking to children. I ask for evidence of a Biblical story and I get stonewalled. But you demand absolute proof for everything I say.
Dodging and weaving is the best evidence of false and empty beliefs.
Quote:A ghostly blue blob amid a swarm of red dots in a new cosmic image is the superhot intergalactic gas permeating the space within the most distant cluster of galaxies found to date.
Located nearly 10 billion light-years away, Cluster XMMXCS 2215-1738 is being hailed by its discoverers as a tantalizing glimpse of what galaxy clusters were like at their earliest stages of formation.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060608_galaxy_cluster.html
If the universe is young, as Real and I assume Baddog believes, how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.
Give me your evidence to support your Bible story; any evidence. If you can't provide any then I suppose we will have to admit your Bible story about creation is a bunch of crap. And if it's a bunch of crap then God didn't inspire or write the Bible.
Would God write crap?
xingu wrote: how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.
The Bible states that light was in existence before the stars, so I am not sure why you think there is a conflict.
If the light was seen before the stars were made, why do you have a problem with the distance of the star? The light was already seen.
real life wrote:xingu wrote: how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.
The Bible states that light was in existence before the stars, so I am not sure why you think there is a conflict.
If the light was seen before the stars were made, why do you have a problem with the distance of the star? The light was already seen.
This is not a matter of light but of the order of creation. The stars were created before the earth, not after.
xingu wrote:real life wrote:xingu wrote: how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.
The Bible states that light was in existence before the stars, so I am not sure why you think there is a conflict.
If the light was seen before the stars were made, why do you have a problem with the distance of the star? The light was already seen.
This is not a matter of light but of the order of creation. The stars were created before the earth, not after.
You asked how to account for the light.
OK, then account for it. And account for the conflict in the order of creation.
real life wrote:xingu wrote:
If you will read carefully my assertions are not for proof of a God but proof of a Biblical story found in Genesis. You and Real say you believe this story based on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove it.
What evidence do you assert 'disproves' the creation story in Genesis?
The age of the planet.
Eytomology of human languages.
For starts.
How come you are asked to back up your BS, you go into full coawrd mode and ask someone else to disprove it.
THAT NOT HOW THIS WORKS.
provide evidence that the world came to be as athe bible claims or STFU. Baddog1, you're welcome to prove it or sing silently as well.
T
K
O
some honesty from the creationists would be nice.
The only thing that I can say to KNOW that God exsists, is that I can feel him. How do you explain things such as healings? A little girl in my church was born deaf and when she was prayed for God healed her. I just don't understand how you can explain that?
Diest TKO wrote:real life wrote:xingu wrote:
If you will read carefully my assertions are not for proof of a God but proof of a Biblical story found in Genesis. You and Real say you believe this story based on faith, regardless of how much evidence there is to disprove it.
What evidence do you assert 'disproves' the creation story in Genesis?
The age of the planet.
Eytomology of human languages.
For starts.
How come you are asked to back up your BS, you go into full coawrd mode and ask someone else to disprove it.
THAT NOT HOW THIS WORKS.
provide evidence that the world came to be as athe bible claims or STFU. Baddog1, you're welcome to prove it or sing silently as well.
T
K
O
some honesty from the creationists would be nice.
So unless a person backs up their BS with evidence they need to STFU?
I thought that was what RL was asking for? Or do you mean that only creationists need to do this? Is that how this works? Honesty would be nice.
How does the age of the planet and the etymology of human languages start to disprove the Genesis account as you claim?
RL did not ask xingu to disprove the account...xingu asserted that there was evidence that disproves it.... just as you did.
ebrown_p had it right.......
Quote-There are, in fact Hundreds of proofs of God's existance. unquote.
Or I should say.. half right'
There are, in fact Hundreds of proofs of hunrdeds of God's existance.
Bart, it is very simple. I will walk you through it.
1) The bible is presented as the end all be all of answers with all thing regaurding life, the universe etc.
2) The bible has a story of creation.
3) The bible has many stories for that matter. The bible is presented by it's own supporters to be infoulable and 100% as it is claimed to be the "word of god." God being infoulable, it follows that the word of god, would additionally be perfect.
4) The bible gives a timeline which would date the earth as being very young.
5) The bible gives a origin for the languages of the world (as well as the genetic differences) with the story of the tower of Babel.
6) If the word of the bible is to be proven false in one area, it is only to follow that the entire bible is incorrect or that the bible is not perfect.
7) If the bible is not perfect uniformly, there is no way to tell the credibility of one story to the next.
8) Point 4 is easily addressed by the fossil record. Be the origin of the world evolution or creationism, the beginning did not occur as the bible accounts for.
9) Point 5 is easily addressed as the origins of our languages do not diverge from a singularity.
10) Being that the bible has been proven incorrect and contrary to even itself the claim that it is the world of god and therefore perfect is false.
11) Since it is not the word of god, and therefore not perfect, there is no basis to give any credibility to any of it's claims.
So here's the drill. If you truly belive what the bible claims, you have to believe in the whole thing, not just parts. You have to be ready to defend every word. You have to reconsile every contradiction. You have to be able to provide evidence for...
1) A flood that covered the entire earth at one time.
2) The origin of every race and language comes from a single event in history.
3) That man has one less rib.
4) That Jesus existed, lived, healed, died, resurected.
And be ready to explain why a god, any god be it abrahamic or not would need to hide evidence of itself.
Quite frankly, it's something nobody can do and there's a reason.
T
K
O
P.s. - This is the part where you try and sidestep me. I won't take it personal, I've come to expect it in this kind of discussions.
Oh yeah and...
Bartikus wrote:
So unless a person backs up their BS with evidence they need to STFU?
absolutley.
This goes for everyone. Religion loves the stage, it rarely STFU, but should learn to.
T
K
O
