Science?

[fourgs]

Atheists' solution - untestable "science"

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)! Why are some cosmologists "uncomfortable" with the idea that the cosmological constant (lambda) is so finely tuned? Simply because such fine tuning suggests design and (oh no!) a Designer. A hypothetical, untestable, complicated model of a super universe is the only alternative to belief in God. Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, but is based solely on the "hope" (i.e., belief) that there is no personal God to Whom we will be personally accountable.

[acmanko]

Why would you think interplanetary travel is impossible, it will be available before the end of this century

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by acmanko
Why would you think interplanetary travel is impossible, it will be available before the end of this century

Interplanetary travel is already a reality. We have sent probes to mars, and through out the solar system. The next step is to physically go there with humans aboard. The only apparent obstacle is funding.

[geerair]

Originally posted by fourgs
Atheists' solution - untestable "science"

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Quantum mechanics.......study it.





Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)!What's your rush? Give science a few years, all will be revealed.



Why are some cosmologists "uncomfortable" with the idea that the cosmological constant (lambda) is so finely tuned? Simply because such fine tuning suggests design and (oh no!) a Designer.What evidence do you have that it is finely tuned? To what is it tuned?



A hypothetical, untestable, complicated model of a super universe is the only alternative to belief in God.You are committing the fallacy of false dilemna. Belief in god is just one of the many hypotheses available.



Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, but is based solely on the "hope" (i.e., belief) that there is no personal God to Whom we will be personally accountable.Oh, I think they are mostly motivated by curiosity rather than a fear being held accountable to non-exsistent deity.

[skrewt]

What's your rush? Give science a few years, all will be revealed.

A faith based assumption.

Since science rarely answers more questions than it creates, I see no evidence that science will reveal all ever, let alone in a few years.

However, your faith is strong and you can pray to the science demi-Gods for your salvation.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

A faith based assumption.Nope, just convinced by the tremendous success of science in explaining our world and the Universe.

Perhaps you are still convinced lightning bolts are supernatural events.






Since science rarely answers more questions than it creates, I see no evidence that science will reveal all ever, let alone in a few years.Probably because your reading material tends to be confined to the Sean Hannity Newsletter and the latest Archie comics.

Your opinions would tend to be less foolish and bereft of credibility if you widened your reading habits.



However, your faith is strong and you can pray to the science demi-Gods for your salvation.Salvation? I don't need no stinking salvation.

[coolwhip]

Todays fiction is tomorrows fact. If we can think it; then its only a matter of time before we build it.

[sysint]

"Todays fiction is tomorrows fact. If we can think it; then its only a matter of time before we build it."

Then it's easy enough to conclude somebody was there before and built it already.

[sysint]

"What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model?..." "Quantum mechanics.......study it."

This is your answer? Sounds like you know nothing about the topic.


Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)!What's your rush? Give science a few years, all will be revealed.

Good. Start your hypothesis on God and "all will be revealed."



Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, ....

Oh, I think they are mostly motivated by curiosity rather than a fear being held accountable to non-exsistent deity.

This is a very weak response. Basis for your claim? None.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint

This is your answer? Sounds like you know nothing about the topic. I'm helping the science challenged broaden their science knowledge.


Give a man a fish..........etc.







This is a very weak response. Basis for your claim? None. The basis of science is curiosity.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint


Good. Start your hypothesis on God and "all will be revealed."Well, he has had thousands of years and has utterly failed at correct explanations, so I think I'll stick with a far younger but infinitely more successful system, science.

[sysint]

Time isn't the same for God as it is to you.

From God's standpoint thousands of years isn't much time to prove man is a total failure at ruling themselves.

It's entirely possible he had to wait until mankind's science" got anywhere close to understanding the things he has made before he makes his next move.

Your "scientists" of the past believed many stupid things and even today believe many stupid things but today there is more of a total case put together.

When you say "correct explanations", explaining what?

More importantly, why does God owe you an explanation?

[coolwhip]

You cant mix religion and science you guys. One requires an open mind and the other does not. Had it not been for astronomy; there would not be other planets, had it not been for the microscope; demons would be making us ill and blood letting would still be practiced.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by coolwhip
You cant mix religion and science you guys. One requires an open mind and the other does not. Had it not been for astronomy; there would not be other planets, had it not been for the microscope; demons would be making us ill and blood letting would still be practiced.

U-u-u-u-h, not exactly. Lots of invetions/discoveries were made by Christians. Ignorance does not confine itself to any belief. Or do you think that it does?

[coolwhip]

All things in moderation ofcourse Boots. Religion may very well help us keep are faith in science exploration so as to not loose confidence in ourselves. But if we still lived by puritanical laws imposed on us by Chrisianity, we could be living in the dark ages where knowledge was kept from the sheep and reserved for the church.

The Church would prefer ignorance in its flock and not intelligence. Intelligent people ask questions.

Its a simple matter of governing and control. Its easier to direct a bunch of idiots rather than those which would question authority.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by coolwhip
All things in moderation ofcourse Boots. Religion may very well help us keep are faith in science exploration so as to not loose confidence in ourselves. But if we still lived by puritanical laws imposed on us by Chrisianity, we could be living in the dark ages where knowledge was kept from the sheep and reserved for the church.

The Church would prefer ignorance in its flock and not intelligence. Intelligent people ask questions.

Its a simple matter of governing and control. Its easier to direct a bunch of idiots rather than those which would question authority.

Who-o-o-o-a. What church are you talking about? Every church I ever attended applauds scientific discovery and medical advancement.

[coolwhip]

When I say church I mean orginised religion.

Example:What is their view on embrionic stem cell research?
:Euthanasia?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by coolwhip
When I say church I mean orginised religion.

Example:What is their view on embrionic stem cell research?
:Euthanasia?

If human life must be destroyed in the name of research in order to "progress", that is not advancement. It is "wheel spinning" at best.

Maybe terms should be defined before making rash statements.

[coolwhip]

Unfortunatly, human life is always detroyed in the way of advancement and research in one way or another.

A dog by any other name is still a dog.

Many of sciences issues border on morality debates. Once you start argueing about morality, it opens up a whole new can of worms that drags out for so long that people forget what the origial issue was. Then it starts over again.

How can one argue moral issues when each persons are different?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by coolwhip
Unfortunatly, human life is always detroyed in the way of advancement and research in one way or another.

Necessarily? I don't think so.

A dog by any other name is still a dog.

I'm not sure of your poinyt here. If you are implying animals being used in research, I don't know of too many Christians who have a problem with this. Sorry, but while a dog by any other name is still a dog, a human is not a dog by any name.

Many of sciences issues border on morality debates. Once you start argueing about morality, it opens up a whole new can of worms that drags out for so long that people forget what the origial issue was. Then it starts over again.

Can't argue there.

How can one argue moral issues when each persons are different?

Excellent question. Ther has to be a standard. There is only one true standard...found in Holy Scripture. The Author of the Bible is also the Author of life. He has all the answers.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
Time isn't the same for God as it is to you.Exactly, we wait for god and our three score and ten is gone in a flash.



From God's standpoint thousands of years isn't much time to prove man is a total failure at ruling themselves.Awfully long time for those living under failed rule.


It's entirely possible he had to wait until mankind's science" got anywhere close to understanding the things he has made before he makes his next move.Being an omnipotent deity he wouldn't have to wait.



Your "scientists" of the past believed many stupid things and even today believe many stupid things but today there is more of a total case put together.That it science. It is self correcting. Unlike religious dogma that claims to have the final truth, science is forever testing and observing and if necessary modifying or discarding theories.





When you say "correct explanations", explaining what?Germ theory, plate tectonics, evolution, gravity and all the many other explanations for natural phenomena that were once thought to be of supernatural origins.


More importantly, why does God owe you an explanation?He doesn't. That is where science has surpassed your concept of god. So as an explanitory system science beats yoour god hands down.

That is why Stephen Hawking said "We haven't proven that there is no god, we have proven him unnecessary."

[sysint]

"Awfully long time for those living under failed rule." Again, according to you.

Being an omnipotent deity he wouldn't have to wait. And your point would be?


That it science. It is self correcting. Unlike religious dogma that claims to have the final truth, science is forever testing and observing and if necessary modifying or discarding theories. Yes. I agree. So, I'm waiting for scientists to discard the evolution theory.


Germ theory, plate tectonics, evolution, gravity and all the many other explanations for natural phenomena that were once thought to be of supernatural origins.

Where in the Bible are these events thought to be supernatural?


"He doesn't. Good. you actually understand my point.

That is where science has surpassed your concept of god. So as an explanitory system science beats yoour god hands down.

Unless he makes himself evident to you or you take the time to actually investigate.

That is why Stephen Hawking said "We haven't proven that there is no god, we have proven him unnecessary."

Again, the primary argument in the Bible. If you agree with Hawking I'd like to hear it. Solved dying, sickness, pollution, starvation, peace.... Your position initially sounds very weak to me.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint

And your point would be? He could make him self understood easily to all peoples. He could reveal all easily. He could by these steps rid the world of evil, pain and suffering. Yet he doesn't. He is not limited by anything, therefore he can do everything, yet he chooses to leave mankind in ignorance and suffering.
Not a particularly admirable deity.




Yes. I agree. So, I'm waiting for scientists to discard the evolution theory. Don't hold your breath. Evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced theories in science.





Germ theory, plate tectonics, evolution, gravity and all the many other explanations for natural phenomena that were once thought to be of supernatural origins.

Where in the Bible are these events thought to be supernatural? All throughout it.



Good. you actually understand my point.But a loving god would volunteer this information.






Unless he makes himself evident to you or you take the time to actually investigate.Have investigated, nobody home.



If you agree with Hawking I'd like to hear it.I agree 100% with Hawking. He is saying that science cannot disprove god but science has made a supernatural explanation superfluous and unnecessary. In other words god is out of a job.



Your position initially sounds very weak to me.Yes, that would be the response I would have expected. Not quite reality based but not unexpected.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by coolwhip
You cant mix religion and science you guys. One requires an open mind and the other does not. Had it not been for astronomy; there would not be other planets, had it not been for the microscope; demons would be making us ill and blood letting would still be practiced.

I would agree with this to a point.
Many people (such as geer) so blindly believe everything that science tells them that it crosses into a religion in itself.
An open mind is very important with science and religion.
I always point to global warming as a perfect example of a scientific community gone berserk. The political agenda has completely swallowed up the science.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
I would agree with this to a point.
Many people (such as geer) so blindly believe everything that science tells them that it crosses into a religion in itself.
An open mind is very important with science and religion.
I always point to global warming as a perfect example of a scientific community gone berserk. The political agenda has completely swallowed up the science.Priceless. Your view on GW is completely tied to your political agenda. To you, evidence is secondary to ideology.

[sysint]

"He could make him self understood easily to all peoples. He could reveal all easily. He could by these steps rid the world of evil, pain and suffering. Yet he doesn't. He is not limited by anything, therefore he can do everything, yet he chooses to leave mankind in ignorance and suffering.
Not a particularly admirable deity."

Again, your ignorance of the Bible shines through. God immediately took action at Genesis 3:15 and left a particularly easy to understand compilation we call the Bible if you strip away the attached doctrine.

He also will accomplish the things he stated after his judicial case is proven. That takes time, and again who are you to question that?


Yes. I agree. So, I'm waiting for scientists to discard the evolution theory. Don't hold your breath. Evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced theories in science.
OK. Whatever. Will change tommorrow. Just like that gene article you liked so much changed within 6 months.

Where in the Bible are these events thought to be supernatural? All throughout it. You seem to have a serious problem with proof. Cited examples rather than some unsubstantiated reply?

Good. you actually understand my point.But a loving god would volunteer this information.

Again, according to whom? And who are you? Anyway, God does explain what he is up to and it's up to you and your free will to decide what to do. What is apparent is that you don't like the method, therefore you condemn it. Again, who are you compared to God?

I'd comment on the rest, but as seems your responses are simply little quips with no value or support. How about some citations and quotes?

Fact of the matter is that you may have a doctrinal understanding of the Bible, but no real knowledge of what it actually states so your comments are mere childish retorts. Try to bring something to the plate and respect my position so I can reciprocrate respect to your position.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint

Again, your ignorance of the Bible shines through. God immediately took action at Genesis 3:15 and left a particularly easy to understand compilation we call the Bible if you strip away the attached doctrine.Hmmmmm.......so your particular doctrine has made the bible clear in meaning and proposes it is easily understood? Other doctrines insist they and only they have the correct meaning of the bible.

If the bible is so clear and easily understood then why are there as many disagreements about the meaning of the bible as there are religions.

What evidence supports your assertion that your doctrine is correct about the bible?



He also will accomplish the things he stated after his judicial case is proven. That takes time, and again who are you to question that?If your god is all-knowing as advertised then shouldn't he already have the answer? What is the hold up?







OK. Whatever. Will change tommorrow. Just like that gene article you liked so much changed within 6 months.Don't recall that one. Could you refresh my memory.

Will change tomorrow? Natural selection has been around for 150 years and is if anything, more strongly supported by the evidence.



You seem to have a serious problem with proof. Cited examples rather than some unsubstantiated reply?2 Chronicles 21:12-19

Deuteronomy 28:20-29

Deuteronomy 32:23-25




Again, according to whom? And who are you? Anyway, God does explain what he is up to and it's up to you and your free will to decide what to do. What is apparent is that you don't like the method, therefore you condemn it. Again, who are you compared to God?I am that I am.







I'd comment on the rest, but as seems your responses are simply little quips with no value or support. How about some citations and quotes? Done.


Fact of the matter is that you may have a doctrinal understanding of the Bible, but no real knowledge of what it actually states so your comments are mere childish retorts.More likely, you have a firm doctrinal stance which allows no other interpretation.




Try to bring something to the plate and respect my position so I can reciprocrate respect to your position. I don't need respect, only reality.

[chillbilly]

When you say "correct explanations", explaining what?
__________________________________________________ _______

You see, geer believes that his interpretation of what is a "correct explanation" is as impeccable as his hatred of the possibility of God and Divinity.





I don't need respect, only reality.
__________________________________________________ _____

Nah, you only respect what you view as "reality" defined as prescribed under your terms and your lack of tolerance and respect for other views is childish.

[Edited by chillbilly on 08-15-2006 at 09:06 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

Being a man of faith, I did not want to read past the initial post for fear that I would have to agree with too many on this forum who belittle my beliefs.

That stated; science is simply a method we use to understand what God has created in this physical world we are currently inhabiting. There is no reason to believe that man cannot travel to other universes since all of physical existance is a creation of God.

[sysint]

I haven't declared any doctrine. You have made an incorrect assumption.

There are many issues that attempt to "cloud" the meaning of what is contained in the Bible. The Bible itself makes mention of Satan and false prophets and apostates that would appear after the death of the apostles. Not to mention pious, self-righteous people that think they deserve a voice as big as God's.


He also will accomplish the things he stated after his judicial case is proven. That takes time, and again who are you to question that?If your god is all-knowing as advertised then shouldn't he already have the answer? What is the hold up?

Once again, God immediately gave his answer at Genesis 3:15. Immediately isn't fast enough for you?


OK. Whatever. Will change tommorrow. Just like that gene article you liked so much changed within 6 months.Don't recall that one. Could you refresh my memory. Yes. I will. Especially since the second article talks of this supposed "big evolutionary" jump in man about 6,500 years ago. Hmmmmmm. It's no different than bird beaks getting larger.... and also smaller (ooops). Still the same bird Darwin.

Will change tomorrow? Natural selection has been around for 150 years and is if anything, more strongly supported by the evidence. See changing bird beaks but still same bird.


Chronicles 21:12-19 Deuteronomy 28:20-29 Deuteronomy 32:23-25

God not only sets judgement, he can carry it out. So, if you disregard his laws, after repeated opportunity to stop the activity, you are punished. Jehoram killed his brothers and others. He was punished for his activity. Similar to the way modern society acts in their judicial systems. Singapore or the US.... you know, modern countries.

Don't break the law, no problems. The nation as a whole heard the rules and decided they would follow.

I am that I am. Time will tell what you actually are. Most often it's not what you think you are.

I don't need respect, only reality. The reality is that you think it's 'your way or the highway'. Problem is you have absolutely no authority to back up anything you say.

[acmanko]

well gosh durn, you finally said something I can agree to.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
I haven't declared any doctrine. You have made an incorrect assumption.You are being disingenuous. Your doctrine is that the bible is easily understood.


There are many issues that attempt to "cloud" the meaning of what is contained in the Bible. The Bible itself makes mention of Satan and false prophets and apostates that would appear after the death of the apostles. Not to mention pious, self-righteous people that think they deserve a voice as big as God's.More doctrine.



Once again, God immediately gave his answer at Genesis 3:15. Immediately isn't fast enough for you??????? You posted that "god will accomplish the things he stated after his judicial case is proven. That takes time." Doesn't sound immediate to me.



Yes. I will. Especially since the second article talks of this supposed "big evolutionary" jump in man about 6,500 years ago.Doesn't ring a bell. Could you possibly list a thread or something.




It's no different than bird beaks getting larger.... and also smaller (ooops). Still the same bird Darwin.Nope, different species.



See changing bird beaks but still same bird.Not the same bird, different species.



God not only sets judgement, he can carry it out. So, if you disregard his laws, after repeated opportunity to stop the activity, you are punished. Jehoram killed his brothers and others. He was punished for his activity. Similar to the way modern society acts in their judicial systems. Singapore or the US.... you know, modern countries.

Don't break the law, no problems. The nation as a whole heard the rules and decided they would follow.Case closed. Some dude came down with a gut ache and immediately the folks called it a punishment from the supernatural. Thankfully we know better these days.








Time will tell what you actually are.Already there.




Most often it's not what you think you are.Maybe for some people but I am acutely self aware.




The reality is that you think it's 'your way or the highway'.Nope, just plain old everyday reality.




Problem is you have absolutely no authority to back up anything you say.Just a lot of science is all.

[sysint]

Here's the short list of what you don't understand:

"A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school" is a doctrine. I have told you what I've read. By your definition all your science publications would simply be "doctrine".

Genesis 3:15 is an immediate solution to the problem. The time factor is proving the immediate solution. Easy point to comprehend.

Uhhh, no. Same species of bird. Beaks get bigger and smaller. Same bird. Very lax definition of "species" apparently.

Case closed. Some dude came down with a gut ache and immediately the folks called it a punishment from the supernatural. Thankfully we know better these days.

Poor response. The terms of punishment was set before the event. This wasn't an after the facts statement where the people attributed it to the supernatural. God told them in advance of the action and then did it.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
Here's the short list of what you don't understand:Here is a response to your apologetic list



"A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school"[/i] is a doctrine. I have told you what I've read.And you have taken it on as a belief of your religious faith.


By your definition all your science publications would simply be "doctrine".In a loose sense , yes or rather components of doctrine.



Genesis 3:15 is an immediate solution to the problem. The time factor is proving the immediate solution. Easy point to comprehend.So, you still have no answers and must wait until some future date for all to be revealed.



Very lax definition of "species" apparently.No, it is precise. That you are not satisfied with it is your problem not science's.





Poor response. The terms of punishment was set before the event. This wasn't an after the facts statement where the people attributed it to the supernatural. God told them in advance of the action and then did it.So, we still have a supernatural agency causing an illness. Thank Zeus we no longer believe that.

[sysint]

You are confused with doctrine. I can't explain the dictionary definition any further. I thought it was quite simple.

Genesis 3:15 was the immediate solution to the problem. The whole thing is completely laid out except for the due date on judgement, which obviously wouldn't be revealed so no bias is generated. Additionally, taking into consideration all parties involved, the time frame is probably biased toward man. With you Geer, it always has to be YOU and how important YOU think you are. I see whereby you would miss that point.

When birds get bigger beaks it's a species change. When those same birds beaks get smaller why isn't it considered another species change? Nice double-standard Darwin.

"Supernatural". Well that's the whole point. God is a deity. Therefore, when he does something it would be "supernatural" just as when you actually do something it is an actual event.

Doesn't detract from the advance notice and the result. Just because YOU are unable to verify it at this time doesn't negate the validity of the action. You can't (generally) see wind, but you can witness the result. Not a foreign concept for you to understand.

EDIT:
"A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school" is a doctrine. I have told you what I've read."

"And you have taken it on as a belief of your religious faith."

I haven't made that comment. Again, I am relating what I've read. Did you read it? Have you read the whole compilation of books?

[Edited by sysint on 08-16-2006 at 01:41 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
You are confused with doctrine. I can't explain the dictionary definition any further. I thought it was quite simple.You are confused with definitions.

Doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by religious, political, scientific or philosophic group.

This is quite simple.




Genesis 3:15 was the immediate solution to the problem. The whole thing is completely laid out except for the due date on judgement, which obviously wouldn't be revealed so no bias is generated. Additionally, taking into consideration all parties involved, the time frame is probably biased toward man. With you Geer, it always has to be YOU and how important YOU think you are. I see whereby you would miss that point.You keep saying there is an immediate solution. What is it? How does it relive pain and suffering and get rid of evil. All of those things are still afflicting mankind. So, where is the immediate solution to that?

A loving, caring omnipotent deity would have snapped his fingers long ago and rid the world of these burdens.

Actually a loving, caring omnipotent deity would have never inflicted these burdens on mankind to begin with.

Sorry, I'll take the system that supplies answers now and is relieving pain and suffering now.




When birds get bigger beaks it's a species change. When those same birds beaks get smaller why isn't it considered another species change?You are confused. Read this, it might help.

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=58402





"Supernatural". Well that's the whole point. God is a deity. Therefore, when he does something it would be "supernatural" just as when you actually do something it is an actual event.So you believe that your god punishes people with illnesses?

So when you get a gut ache, how do you know if it is a supernatural gut ache or a germ induced gut ache.

So when you get a gut ache do you pray it away or do you take medical steps?



Doesn't detract from the advance notice and the result. Just because YOU are unable to verify it at this time doesn't negate the validity of the action.You are still left with the supernatural causing an illness. We know better now. We know illnesses are not caused by an offended deity.




You can't (generally) see wind, but you can witness the result. Not a foreign concept for you to understand.We also know the cause of wind and it is not supernatural. Also not a foreign concept for you to understand.



We also know the causes of gut ache and none of them involve the supernatural casting an illness into the offender.




haven't made that comment. Again, I am relating what I've read. Did you read it? Have you read the whole compilation of books? Do you believe or accept what you have read? Does it form the basis of your belief system?

[sysint]

Well, when you get a quote it's nice if you actually use the whole quote:

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

So, I'd agree, the whole quote makes it simple.

Doctrine involves a group. I make no claim to a group. The Bible is what it is, so I am relating what I've read.

You keep saying there is an immediate solution. What is it? How does it relive pain and suffering and get rid of evil. All of those things are still afflicting mankind. So, where is the immediate solution to that?

Where is your immediate solution? God laid out the solution immediately. The actual implementation is yet in the future according to what the Bible states.

A loving, caring omnipotent deity would have snapped his fingers long ago and rid the world of these burdens.
Actually a loving, caring omnipotent deity would have never inflicted these burdens on mankind to begin with.
Sorry, I'll take the system that supplies answers now and is relieving pain and suffering now.

Well, science hasn't solved any of those "burdens". Nowhere close. And, you are making assumptions on finger snapping with no justification. Again, what is your opinion or judgement worth compared to God? Not much. You lack understanding.

I'll look into your link... later.

So you believe that your god punishes people with illnesses? If he chooses that punishment-- yes.

So when you get a gut ache, how do you know if it is a supernatural gut ache or a germ induced gut ache.
So when you get a gut ache do you pray it away or do you take medical steps?

Depends on the advance warning. Since God doesn't do those methods anymore I'd say any gut aches are simply that. No need to pray over it.


You are still left with the supernatural causing an illness. We know better now. We know illnesses are not caused by an offended deity. That would be a poor statement by you easily disproven. Someone else can induce sickness in a person. Therefore, it is possible a God can induce sickness in a person. Bad argument by you.


Do you believe or accept what you have read? Does it form the basis of your belief system? What does that matter for the discussion?

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
Well, when you get a quote it's nice if you actually use the whole quote:

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

So, I'd agree, the whole quote makes it simple.

Doctrine involves a group. I make no claim to a group. The Bible is what it is, so I am relating what I've read.Doctrine can very well apply to individuals as well.



Where is your immediate solution?I don't claim to be an omnipotent deity.


God laid out the solution immediately. The actual implementation is yet in the future according to what the Bible states.What good is that?






Well, science hasn't solved any of those "burdens". Nowhere close.Ah but they have, not all of them but science has relieved pain and suffering which puts science light-years ahead of your god and his promissory note.


And, you are making assumptions on finger snapping with no justification. Again, what is your opinion or judgement worth compared to God? Not much.Seeing as how your god and all other gods are myths, my opinions and judgements are have the virtue of reality rather than myth.


You lack understanding.You lack rationality.




So you believe that your god punishes people with illnesses? [/i] If he chooses that punishment-- yes.Can you medically document any of these illnesses and provide supporting credible evidence that your god caused these illnesses?





Depends on the advance warning. Since God doesn't do those methods anymore I'd say any gut aches are simply that. No need to pray over it.So what is your god doing now for punishments? Timeouts?



That would be a poor statement by you easily disproven. Someone else can induce sickness in a person. Therefore, it is possible a God can induce sickness in a person. Bad argument by you.And how does someone else induce sickness in another person?




What does that matter for the discussion?Kinda the point of the whole discussion. Why else would you be rabidly defending the supernatural?

[sysint]

I don't claim to be an omnipotent deity. That has nothing to do with things. You have according to the Bible putting yourself on an equal standing with God, so I'm sure you have some ideas....

God laid out the solution immediately. The actual implementation is yet in the future according to what the Bible states.What good is that?

"What's your rush? Give <God> a few years, all will be revealed."

Well, science hasn't solved any of those "burdens". Nowhere close.Ah but they have, not all of them but science has relieved pain and suffering which puts science light-years ahead of your god and his promissory note. That's nonsense. There is a ton of pain and suffering out there.

"Seeing as how your god and all other gods are myths, my opinions and judgements are have the virtue of reality rather than myth. Prove it.

Can you medically document any of these illnesses and provide supporting credible evidence that your god caused these illnesses?Just the eyewitness accounts. You see, science was really, really bad during those days. It's been stated Luke was a physician, but again, science was really, really, bad then. Just like today, only tommorrow may be better. 'Likely you have a firm <science> stance which allows no other interpretation', but actually science was not very good those days. The Bible actually performs better in regards to science at that time than the scientists did, and the Bible isn't even a science textbook.

So what is your god doing now for punishments? Timeouts? Well, if you knew anything about the Bible; which I'm talking about and you can't grasp in your commments because you always say "your god", you could have that answer. Have you read it? 'I'm helping the <Bible> challenged broaden their <Bible> knowledge'.

And how does someone else induce sickness in another person? Introduce a toxin. Explode a nuclear bomb. Need any more examples?

Kinda the point of the whole discussion. Why else would you be rabidly defending the supernatural? I'm just telling you what the Bible states of which you aren't very versed. You are the one using the adverbs and creating a situation in your head that doesn't exist.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
That has nothing to do with things.Certainly it does. Give me the omnipotent powers and you will see some progress immediately.

None of this prommisory note, I'll get around to it later Seinfelds on now, Yahweh procrastination.



You have according to the Bible putting yourself on an equal standing with God, so I'm sure you have some ideas....Equal standing? God is a myth, I am real.



"What's your rush? Give <God> a few years, all will be revealed."Your God doesn't need a few years, he can do it now. What is he waiting on?


That's nonsense. There is a ton of pain and suffering out there.Certainly there is. And science has relieved a ton of pain and suffering. Gee, mere mortals have made tremendous strides in relieving pain and suffering, while your omnipotent deity hasn't raised a finger to help.



Prove it.Bush is President.



Just the eyewitness accounts.Your accounts are secondhand at best if not fabricated.



You see, science was really, really bad during those days. It's been stated Luke was a physician, but again, science was really, really, bad then. Just like today, only tommorrow may be better.True enough. Thankfully science has progressed tremendously since then.




'Likely you have a firm <science> stance which allows no other interpretation', but actually science was not very good those days. The Bible actually performs better in regards to science at that time than the scientists did, and the Bible isn't even a science textbook.Some examples?



Well, if you knew anything about the Bible; which I'm talking about and you can't grasp in your commments because you always say "your god", you could have that answer. Have you read it? 'I'm helping the <Bible> challenged broaden their <Bible> knowledge'.Spent many years immersed in it. The bible is part of wht convinced me to become an atheist.


Introduce a toxin. Explode a nuclear bomb. Need any more examples?So, your god meted out illnesses by introducing toxins?


I'm just telling you what the Bible states of which you aren't very versed. You are the one using the adverbs and creating a situation in your head that doesn't exist. One gets the impression you are trying to validate your god on the one hand while distancing yourself from any attachment to this god on the other.

[Edited by geerair on 08-17-2006 at 11:06 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

Thanks geer. I was having trouble getting to sleep tonight. After reading a few of your posts....yawn...goodnight.

[geerair]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Thanks geer. I was having trouble getting to sleep tonight. After reading a few of your posts....yawn...goodnight. Glad to be of service!!!!!

[sysint]

Geer, you have all sorts of opinions on many things but now you need omnipotent powers to claim to make progress. That shouldn't be the dependant factor on what you would do. Why not just say you don't have a clue?

According to the Bible God is waiting to exercise his judgement when it is completely proven that mankind cannot operate properly without his direction. Once that is thoroughly proven the Bible says he steps in and makes permanent changes.

Science copes with pain and suffering. The Bible gives examples of people being cured and raised from the dead and makes promises that God will do this on a greater scale in the future. All that scientific progress and yet still all the problems. You state:"True enough. Thankfully science has progressed tremendously since then.
The Bible states: "He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end."

Some examples:
Account of creation is in an order that is agreeable to science on the appearance of life which you haven't disproven, only complained it lacked detail.
The laws that God set out for Israel was ahead of it's time medically preventing the cause of disease by conditions of squalor. The law to the Israelites prevented them from eating rabbits declaring them an animal that chews it's cud in advance of scientific proof. The animals acceptable for food were good choices. Avoiding pork was a good choice to avoid trichiniasis and cysticercosis.
The Bible brings out the earth is a circle or sphere and it's not supported by anything. This was before the Greeks figured it out which of course was before the Dark Ages changed the thoughts on the matter altogether. If the people during the Dark Ages would have read their Bible, they would have thought differently.

So, your god meted out illnesses by introducing toxins? First, you asked how a person would introduce a sickness. I answered that question, however your second question is derived from my response on a person. On your following question, the eyewitness accounting in the Bible didn't state how the illness was caused, only that before it happened that was the punishment and later that punishment did happen.

On the eyewitness accounts I guess I have to try to get you to back up your statements, so yet again I'd say if you think the accounts are "are secondhand at best, since you are making the claim, you bear the burden of proof and the degree of importance.

Additionally, I will make the same counterclaim on science since I'm sure you aren't personally onhand for every item tested in a lab or dug up around the earth through time in the name of science, especially since you don't claim omnipotence. Then we will see how rational your statement is going to be. Further, God has had witnesses for all the things concerning the earth from creation. However, in many instances these people are dead so a personal interview is out. I'm sure you have some writings from some dead scientists whereby it may be hard for you to conduct a personal interview.

One gets the impression:
you spent many years in doctrine.
you need to try a personal attack rather than argue strictly on what the Bible states.

[tonys]

I had to stop once I read:
"According to the Bible..."

scary stuff.

just wonder'n - who wrote your bible?
and, what were their political ties?

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
Geer, you have all sorts of opinions on many things but now you need omnipotent powers to claim to make progress.Again, the point was that your god is omnipotent and could do anything he wanted yet there is still pain and suffering and evil in the world. You insist that god is waiting for some vague time to correct this.

Give me the ominpotence and I will cure all of these burdens immediately.




That shouldn't be the dependant factor on what you would do. Why not just say you don't have a clue?Certainly it is the dependant factor. If you demand that I solve problems only a omnipotent entity can solve then I must be endowed with omnipotence. Otherwise you are asking the impossible.



According to the Bible God is waiting to exercise his judgement when it is completely proven that mankind cannot operate properly without his direction. Once that is thoroughly proven the Bible says he steps in and makes permanent changes.But if god is omnipotent then he already knows the outcome. What is he waiting for?



Science copes with pain and suffering. The Bible gives examples of people being cured and raised from the dead and makes promises that God will do this on a greater scale in the future.And what is the authority of the bible? The bible is true because it is the word of god, the word of god is true because the bible says so. Circular argument.




The Bible states: "He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end."Nice but hardly relevent.


Some examples:
Account of creation is in an order that is agreeable to science on the appearance of life which you haven't disproven, only complained it lacked detail.Earth created before the sun, moon and stars? Earth created before light? Plant life before the sun?

Sorry, no sale.



The laws that God set out for Israel was ahead of it's time medically preventing the cause of disease by conditions of squalor. The law to the Israelites prevented them from eating rabbits declaring them an animal that chews it's cud in advance of scientific proof. The animals acceptable for food were good choices. Avoiding pork was a good choice to avoid trichiniasis and cysticercosis.You might have a point except that there were several civilizations that were contemporary with and even predated the Jews who had equal or better medical and health practices.

So your argument falls flat.





The Bible brings out the earth is a circle or sphere and it's not supported by anything. This was before the Greeks figured it out which of course was before the Dark Ages changed the thoughts on the matter altogether. If the people during the Dark Ages would have read their Bible, they would have thought differently.the bible also states that the kingdoms of the earth could be seen from a mountain which implies a flat earth.


First, you asked how a person would introduce a sickness. I answered that question, however your second question is derived from my response on a person. On your following question, the eyewitness accounting in the Bible didn't state how the illness was caused, only that before it happened that was the punishment and later that punishment did happen.So did god cause the illness or not?






On the eyewitness accounts I guess I have to try to get you to back up your statements, so yet again I'd say if you think the accounts are "are secondhand at best, since you are making the claim, you bear the burden of proof and the degree of importance.Very simple. There is no corroboration outside of the bible that these events occurred or that there were eyewitnesses to these events.



Additionally, I will make the same counterclaim on science since I'm sure you aren't personally onhand for every item tested in a lab or dug up around the earth through time in the name of science, especially since you don't claim omnipotence. Then we will see how rational your statement is going to be.No I wasn't there but there are scientific papers, journals, photographs, peer review, lab results that are tested and duplicated, accounts from outside sources, all of which confirm these events.




Further, God has had witnesses for all the things concerning the earth from creation. However, in many instances these people are dead so a personal interview is out.Again, what is the authority for this?



I'm sure you have some writings from some dead scientists whereby it may be hard for you to conduct a personal interview.Certainly. I also have historical corroboration for these scientists.




One gets the impression:
you spent many years in doctrine.
you need to try a personal attack rather than argue strictly on what the Bible states. Nah, you are just for some reason reluctant to confirm whether you beleive the things you read in the bible.

[sysint]

The Bible says that only God knows the date he takes action. It is not a vague date to him.

You make the claim of science being able to fix man's problems, but on the other hand claim because you personally aren't omnipotent, you have no solution. What really you are saying is science to date is unable to solve the problems as they exist today.

The Bible has eyewitness accounts of what happened in the past.
It is stated that the Bible is inspired by God.
So, by study of the Bible a person can make a determination on the information contained therein.

No circular reasoning there unless you dream some up.

For instance: And what is the authority of the <science textbook of your choice>? The <book> is true because it is the word of a <scientist>, the word of the <scientist> is true because the <book> says so.

Circular argument I guess. Yet another example of you making conclusions that I did not state and do not exist.

The quote of Ecclesiastes was entirely relevant because science today still has a long way to go. (see above with your lack of solutions)

the bible also states that the kingdoms of the earth could be seen from a mountain which implies a flat earth. Quote the scripture for everyone so I can clear up your lack of understanding what the statement made actually means. I was expecting this one, but go ahead anyway. I state you must come out with the scripture to verify you haven't simply picked it up off a website.

On the illness - Yes. It was no mystery illness. It was the illness that was stated before the event took place.

Very simple. There is no corroboration outside of the bible that these events occurred or that there were eyewitnesses to these events. I could state the same about much science. However, are you saying that if 4 people wrote about a specific instance that that's not enough? You have to remember that the Bible as we have it is a compilation of books written over a long period of time. So, in some instances you are arbitraily discounting multiple accounts of an event.

"Evidence supplementary to that already given and tending to confirm it. Generally, in criminal cases essential facts must be proved by the evidence of more than one witness; documentary or physical evidence may be used to provide corroboration." So, multiple witnesses is good enough for corroboration. I had made the statement to you before that the Bible is good with legal issues.

Show me all Darwins photographs and all his peer reviews. And please, on the birds all the data, big beaks and small beaks. How about the Piltdown man reviews, and sticking dead moths on trees? What I'm getting at is there is alot of paper out there. And, I've got papers that I read that change 6 months later.

What's your authority with your scientists? I guess you can attach any title you want, this doesn't make what they say correct all the time. More than that, science seems to change quite rapidly. What they think they know today is completely different tommorrow. What happens to all those incorrect glowing reviews, the photographs and the data?

Back on what the Bible actually states - you are obsessed with the attempt to attach a doctrine. I'm not going to give you the luxury of nit-picking on that, and it's not relevant to the discussion. Neither is your constant nitpicking on each individual sentence. Develop some coherent thought and make an actual paragraph of thought. Stop trying so much mis-direction if you are so confident in your position and stick to the discussion. Your attempts are seemingly childish and you should stop now because if you are unable to create debate I am going to stop discussion. Just because you are overt with your dogma of evolution doesn't necessitate my declaration of anything. You have a whole Bible to work with. Try that. That is the premise I have laid out. I'm not here to give you an opportunity at ad hominem.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
The Bible says that only God knows the date he takes action. It is not a vague date to him.So if he knows the date, then he knows the outcome. You said he is waiting for the outcome but if he already knows.........




You make the claim of science being able to fix man's problems, but on the other hand claim because you personally aren't omnipotent, you have no solution.
What really you are saying is science to date is unable to solve the problems as they exist today.Nope, what I am saying is that science has solved some problems in the past, has solved some problems as they exsist today and is working on solving the rest of the problems.

This in contrast to your god who is not solving today's or any other day's problems even though he is omnipotent.

I'll go with the system that is solving our problems today rather than a deity who is a procrastinator.



The Bible has eyewitness accounts of what happened in the past.
It is stated that the Bible is inspired by God.
So, by study of the Bible a person can make a determination on the information contained therein.

No circular reasoning there unless you dream some up.This is the textbook example of a circular argument.

Q. How do we know the bible is inspired by god?

A. The bible says so.

Q. How do we know the bible is true?

A. The bible is inspired by god.

Classic circular argument.




For instance: And what is the authority of the <science textbook of your choice>? The <book> is true because it is the word of a <scientist>, the word of the <scientist> is true because the <book> says so.Years of observations and testing, rigorous scrunity by peer process, review by textbook authorities.



Circular argument I guess.You guess wrong.





The quote of Ecclesiastes was entirely relevant because science today still has a long way to go. (see above with your lack of solutions)Certainly it does, but it has come a long way as well. And as opposed to your god is actually working on solving these problems.




Quote the scripture for everyone so I can clear up your lack of understanding what the statement made actually means. I was expecting this one, but go ahead anyway. I state you must come out with the scripture to verify you haven't simply picked it up off a website.If you already know it, then proceed with your apologetics.

Matthew 4:1-11.



On the illness - Yes. It was no mystery illness. It was the illness that was stated before the event took place.You are stil left with a supernatural cause of the illness which we know is wrong.







I could state the same about much science.Nope. See earlier response.




However, are you saying that if 4 people wrote about a specific instance that that's not enough?Not if they weren't eyewitnesses. Otherwise you have nothing but hearsay.




You have to remember that the Bible as we have it is a compilation of books written over a long period of time. So, in some instances you are arbitraily discounting multiple accounts of an event.Which would be an argument against the eyewitness claim.





"Evidence supplementary to that already given and tending to confirm it. Generally, in criminal cases essential facts must be proved by the evidence of more than one witness; documentary or physical evidence may be used to provide corroboration." So, multiple witnesses is good enough for corroboration. I had made the statement to you before that the Bible is good with legal issues.Eyewitnesses. Also, eyewitnesses in a court of law are crossexamined.



Show me all Darwins photographs and all his peer reviews. And please, on the birds all the data, big beaks and small beaks. How about the Piltdown man reviews, and sticking dead moths on trees? What I'm getting at is there is alot of paper out there. And, I've got papers that I read that change 6 months later.Yes, science is dynamic. Would you have it any other way?




What's your authority with your scientists? I guess you can attach any title you want, this doesn't make what they say correct all the time.Nobody said it did.



More than that, science seems to change quite rapidly. What they think they know today is completely different tommorrow. what happens to all those incorrect glowing reviews, the photographs and the data?Completely different is a bit hyperbolic. More often the core theory remains but is modified as indeed is the case with evolution. Genetics and molecular biology have modified Evolution but the core of Darwin's theory remains intact and in fact has been supported even more strongly by new evidence from these fields.



Back on what the Bible actually states - you are obsessed with the attempt to attach a doctrine. I'm not going to give you the luxury of nit-picking on that, and it's not relevant to the discussion. Neither is your constant nitpicking on each individual sentence. Develop some coherent thought and make an actual paragraph of thought. Stop trying so much mis-direction if you are so confident in your position and stick to the discussion. Your attempts are seemingly childish and you should stop now because if you are unable to create debate I am going to stop discussion. Just because you are overt with your dogma of evolution doesn't necessitate my declaration of anything. You have a whole Bible to work with. Try that. That is the premise I have laid out. I'm not here to give you an opportunity at ad hominem.Suit yourself. If you are just playing devil's advocate then just say so. If you want to obscure your dogma, no skin off my nose.

[RoBoTeq]

The way I see it is that the Bible is just flat out misused by most people, those who revere it as well as those who condemn it.

The Bible is a collection of stories, most are probably more parabolic then historical, that tell of God's teaching mankind how to best deal with His creation of all physical matter.

The New Testament is more historical in telling us how God dealt with the problem of mankind's innability to understand God.

Way too much reverence is put on the Bible and the New Testament by those of faith who tend to iconize the writings, and way too much emphasis is put on out of context particulars by those who wish to degrade the writings of the most popular books ever written.

The Bible and the New Testament are best used as guides to better living and how to prepare for our eventially getting back to being strictly spiritual beings.

We need to stop making the Bible and New Testament items of worship and disdain and start dwelling more on using these books as instructional manuals.

[acmanko]

Several countries have tried Bible Burnings, but it did,nt work. Others will print more and smuggle them in.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
Several countries have tried Bible Burnings, but it did,nt work. Others will print more and smuggle them in.

Please enlighten us with which countries have banned Bibles and tried Bible burnings. Any that are not mostly Muslim?

Do you support Bible burnings? Why are people afraid of what is written in the Bible?

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by acmanko
Several countries have tried Bible Burnings, but it did,nt work. Others will print more and smuggle them in.

Please enlighten us with which countries have banned Bibles and tried Bible burnings. Any that are not mostly Muslim?

Do you support Bible burnings? Why are people afraid of what is written in the Bible?

I dont know about burning them, but In the Soviet Union bibles where illegal, The soviets also removed all crucifixes on their churches, and replaced them with a red star. Bibles also used to be illegal in china. But I dont know if the chinese are now alloing them or not.

[acmanko]

Hitler and the Nazi's burned Bibles

[sysint]

Originally posted by acmanko
Hitler and the Nazi's burned Bibles Got a reference for that?

[sysint]

I don't know the date or the outcome.
Again, God has the date to solve the problems. God is according to the Bible also giving you and everyone else an opportunity to choose to the best of your ability. That is the free will you have been granted according to the Bible.

Nope, what I am saying is that <God> has solved some problems in the past, and is <going to> solve the rest of the problems.
This in contrast to your <science> who is not solving today's or any other day's problems even though they claim intelligence.
I'll go with the system that is permanently solving our problems rather than a science which is not capable.
This is the textbook example of a circular argument.

Q. How do we know the bible is inspired by god?
A. The bible says so.
Q. How do we know the bible is true?
A. The bible is inspired by god.
Classic circular argument.

I agree. It's not what I have stated. You are making that argument. Good luck in proving it.

You are making the claim that every scientific study has years of observations, rigorous scrutiny, and review?

Matthew 4:1-11. Jesus was a witness of creation and knows the world is round. The language of the passage doesn't preclude the way the Devil "showed" Jesus the kingdoms of the world and their glory. This is not a mountain whereby Jesus could literally "see" these kingdoms. How could a view demonstrate "their glory"? If he was physically taken to a high mountain, it would have taken him awhile to get back. The point was that Jesus wasn't going to be tempted to worship the devil. It wasn't an observation on the earth itself, but who was in control of these kingdoms, was able to offer these kingdoms, and whether Jesus would succumb to any sort of temptation concerning these kingdoms. Contrast in Isaiah that is not the case. There it is an observation of the earth. And in Job, it is an observation on the earth itself. You want to pull some information out of the description that isn't necessarily there in Matthew. Nobody asked Jesus directly if it was a literal mountain, or a demonstration on a mountain. Additionally, nobody reported the Devil carting Jesus around the temple so it is more likely a vision. However, the temptation is valid as according to the Bible the ruler of the world is the Devil.

"Kosmou -orderly arrangement,i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense,including its inhabitants,literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world."

Yet again, where the Bible comments on science it is not incorrect. But the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Matthew 4 is not a scientific observation. Pointing to that passage to indicate the world is flat is not a good argument.

If a person can induce sickness in someone God could to the same. Just because he is a different being than a person doesn't negate the ability to induce sickness. You would have to disprove the existence of God as a lifeform. So, really the attempt at a point, wasn't.

"Not if they weren't eyewitnesses". Thank you for answering my question. Feel free to cross-examine them if you can and have the authority to do so. Can you cross examine past US or scientific case history? What validity do you attach to that information?

"Yes, science is dynamic. Would you have it any other way?" Only that science would be more forthcoming when wrong. I will research more what you consider hyperbole. It is a reasonable statement.

"Suit yourself. If you are just playing devil's advocate then just say so. If you want to obscure your dogma, no skin off my nose." -

Then stop talking about it. I'm relating what the Bible states.

[RoBoTeq]

Interesting; Communist China, Communist USSR and Nazi Germany all tried, and failed, to suppress religous faith. Why would they try? Because the so called leaders of these types of nations are led by the nose by Satan, and Satan is scared to death of those who have faith in God.

Another interesting thing I noticed when I was in Havanna. Even though Cuba is Communist, which usually requires the diminishing of religous faith, there is quite an active religous faith oriented attitude in Havanna. Many churches with their crosses topping their steeples can be seen across the Havanna skyline. I bought my older sister a real nice silver and black coral cross necklace while I was there.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
I don't know the date or the outcome.
Again, God has the date to solve the problems. God is according to the Bible also giving you and everyone else an opportunity to choose to the best of your ability. That is the free will you have been granted according to the Bible.So we are still left with an omnipotent deity who knows the date, knows the outcome and yet you assert he is waiting for to discover the date and the outcome before acting. Not very credible.


Nope, what I am saying is that <God> has solved some problems in the past, and is <going to> solve the rest of the problems.What problems related to pain and suffering has he solved?





This in contrast to your <science> who is not solving today's or any other day's problems even though they claim intelligence.Gee, I guess all those diseases cured themselves. I suppose these computers we use just materialized out of thin air.




I'll go with the system that is permanently solving our problems rather than a science which is not capable.What problems are being permanently solved? What problems has your deity solved in the past? Polio? Measles?

What has your system produced in the way of medicine or technology?

so if you are going to stick with your system, then to be intellectually consistent you will need to give up everything produced by science.

Have fun sitting in your cold dark cave, wearing a fig leaf and eating roots and berries,



Q. How do we know the bible is inspired by god?
A. The bible says so.
Q. How do we know the bible is true?
A. The bible is inspired by god.
Classic circular argument.[/i]

I agree. It's not what I have stated. You are making that argument. Good luck in proving it.So how do we know the bible is true?

So how do we know the bible is inspired by your god?





You are making the claim that every scientific study has years of observations, rigorous scrutiny, and review?Yes. Some more years than others.



Matthew 4:1-11. Jesus was a witness of creation and knows the world is round.According to the bible. How do we know the bible is accurate?




The language of the passage doesn't preclude the way the Devil "showed" Jesus the kingdoms of the world and their glory. This is not a mountain whereby Jesus could literally "see" these kingdoms. How could a view demonstrate "their glory"? If he was physically taken to a high mountain, it would have taken him awhile to get back. The point was that Jesus wasn't going to be tempted to worship the devil. It wasn't an observation on the earth itself, but who was in control of these kingdoms, was able to offer these kingdoms, and whether Jesus would succumb to any sort of temptation concerning these kingdoms. Contrast in Isaiah that is not the case. There it is an observation of the earth. And in Job, it is an observation on the earth itself. You want to pull some information out of the description that isn't necessarily there in Matthew. Nobody asked Jesus directly if it was a literal mountain, or a demonstration on a mountain. Additionally, nobody reported the Devil carting Jesus around the temple so it is more likely a vision. However, the temptation is valid as according to the Bible the ruler of the world is the Devil.Ah, aren't apologetics wonderful? Just whisk difficulties away with a little extra-biblical imagination.



Yet again, where the Bible comments on science it is not incorrect. But the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Matthew 4 is not a scientific observation. Pointing to that passage to indicate the world is flat is not a good argument.Hmmmm......says right there in black and white that jesus was shown the kingdoms of the world from a mountaintop. Pretty clear a flat earth is implied.





If a person can induce sickness in someone God could to the same. Just because he is a different being than a person doesn't negate the ability to induce sickness. You would have to disprove the existence of God as a lifeform. So, really the attempt at a point, wasn't.So you still are left with a supernatural being inducing illnesses. We now know that doesn't happen.







"Not if they weren't eyewitnesses". Thank you for answering my question. Feel free to cross-examine them if you can and have the authority to do so. Can you cross examine past US or scientific case history?Yes. For example Darwin left us his theory, books, papers and journals. Also there are the books, papers and journals by his comtemporaries. We can crossexamine Darwin with evidence uncovered since his death. We can crossexamine all of the material he left us with modern methods.

Crossexamine? Certainly.



What validity do you attach to that information?A high level.




Only that science would be more forthcoming when wrong. Well, frauds have been uncovered and exposed by science. Cold fusion was shown to be wrong by science. The fraudulent Chinese bird fossils were exposed by science.

Hell, if you can show evolution is wrong, money and fame are yours.

What wrongs has science been reticent to reveal?




Then stop talking about it. I'm relating what the Bible states. Okey Doke.

[chillbilly]

I see geer is using the same old tactics to attempt to fortify a theory.
This is called "begging the question" and it is the hallmark of a useless assertion.
In other words, there is no factual standing for the premise of macro, cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary or organic evolution because it is based on a series of assumptions.

Other tactics commonly misused by geer are "chronological snobbery" which involves trying to refute a point by arbitrarily concluding that because it is "old" it is useless.

"Appeal to the people" which involves using the general public as a basis for an argument instead of any relevant fact that would support the gross amount of assumption he swallows.

"Misuse of authority" is the one where geer babbles about 'peer review' validating a conclusion that is nothing more than a hypothetical, again eagerly swallowed.

And then there's the 'Argument to the future" garbage whereby poor geer retorts, "What's your rush? All will be revealed in the future."...while everyone reading is already acutely aware that he can't even prove any PRESENT assumptions.




And here we have geer, a Biblical illiterate, attempting to understand the will and intent of a living God.

Poor geer can't even contribute a solid paragraph on the fledgling theory of abiogenesis that would lend ANY credibility to HIS beliefs but he can quickly theorize about the will of a creator using the snapping of fingers as an illustration.
How crude and ineffective.


LOL

[kim]

What we have here is two sides of two different arguements trying to discredit each other.

Science is not antireligion. Science does not say that God does not exist. It simply regards religion as untestable. Religion can't be used as part of the scientific testing method.

Some religous people attack science because they feel science is attacking their religion. Just because you beleive God created the world in 7 days does not mean science is wrong. My personal beleive is you is being too presumptive. It could be that 7 days to God is not the same as 7 days to you. To imposs your standard of time on God is egocentric at best.

As far as a multidimentional universe: It was started by Schradenger's cat theory. It proposes that a cat in a box has an equal probabilty of being alive or dead until we open the box and see. In one universe it may be dead. In an other universe it may be alive. It comes from the egocentric nature of science to not beleive anything until it can be proven.
Now we have string theory. In string theory the universe has more than the standard 3 dimentions. It is difficult to understand the nature of these other dimensions. They are based on properties of mathematical systems that can only be understood with an advanced degree in linear algebra theory. You will not even see them in your first linear algebra class.

The cosmoligy constant is another concept that is blown way out of proportion. If it so easy to take these theoretical concepts and portray them in a science fiction manner. I have even seen it tied to the gravitaional constant in a way that requires people to realize it exists. Total hog wash. The universe would be the same if we were not here to see it.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
I see geer is using the same old tactics to attempt to fortify a theory.Nah, just evidence.


This is called "begging the question" and it is the hallmark of a useless assertion.
In other words, there is no factual standing for the premise of macro, cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary or organic evolution because it is based on a series of assumptions.Of course chilly has been asked numerous times what those assumptions are but has yet grow a set and answer.

Poor chilly, he stands in the dark endlessly repeating his ignorant cry, "there is no evidence , there is no evidence" as if sheer repetition would negate the mountain of scientific evidence that stands before him. How sad for him.





Other tactics commonly misused by geer are "chronological snobbery" which involves trying to refute a point by arbitrarily concluding that because it is "old" it is useless.Useless because it has been either surpassed or replaced by newer evidence or more robust theories. The theory of Evolution is 150 years old, yet remains robust.

Theories are immune to age but not to evidence.


Poor old chilly brings this up because he is still smarting from a smackdown of a crackpot he was promoting.



"Appeal to the people" which involves using the general public as a basis for an argument instead of any relevant fact that would support the gross amount of assumption he swallows.What specifically are you referring to here? Give examples or go home.



"Misuse of authority" is the one where geer babbles about 'peer review' validating a conclusion that is nothing more than a hypothetical, again eagerly swallowed.Chilly hates peer review because none of his creationist views could ever pass peer-review.

No wonder he whines about it at every turn.





And then there's the 'Argument to the future" garbage whereby poor geer retorts, "What's your rush? All will be revealed in the future."Sure, based on past success, it is just a matter of time. Look how far science has come in just a few years.





....while everyone reading is already acutely aware that he can't even prove any PRESENT assumptions.What assumptions are those?





And here we have geer, a Biblical illiterate, attempting to understand the will and intent of a living God.Nah, just trying to understand the thought processes of those who fervently believe in talking snakes, the sun standing still, and various other equally nonesensical things and yet deny modern science.







Poor geer can't even contribute a solid paragraph on the fledgling theory of abiogenesis that would lend ANY credibility to HIS beliefs but he can quickly theorize about the will of a creator using the snapping of fingers as an illustration.Nah, Abio is a fact. This scares chilly so he lashes out like a child.




How crude and ineffective.Priceless.

[geerair]

Originally posted by kim

Science is not antireligion. Science does not say that God does not exist. It simply regards religion as untestable. Religion can't be used as part of the scientific testing method.

Some religous people attack science because they feel science is attacking their religion. Just because you beleive God created the world in 7 days does not mean science is wrong. My personal beleive is you is being too presumptive. It could be that 7 days to God is not the same as 7 days to you. To imposs your standard of time on God is egocentric at best.

As far as a multidimentional universe: It was started by Schradenger's cat theory. It proposes that a cat in a box has an equal probabilty of being alive or dead until we open the box and see. In one universe it may be dead. In an other universe it may be alive. It comes from the egocentric nature of science to not beleive anything until it can be proven.
Now we have string theory. In string theory the universe has more than the standard 3 dimentions. It is difficult to understand the nature of these other dimensions. They are based on properties of mathematical systems that can only be understood with an advanced degree in linear algebra theory. You will not even see them in your first linear algebra class.

The cosmoligy constant is another concept that is blown way out of proportion. If it so easy to take these theoretical concepts and portray them in a science fiction manner. I have even seen it tied to the gravitaional constant in a way that requires people to realize it exists. Total hog wash. The universe would be the same if we were not here to see it. [/B]Well said Kim.

[sysint]

The Bible states what God will do but not when. If you knew "when" your actions would include bias, therefore the outcome could be challenged by other parties. The decision not to announce a date was not only credible but logical and reasonable from a legal standpoint.

The Bible states various areas where people were cured of sicknesses and resurrected. The Bible indicates these are the things God will do on a larger scale in the future for the people that choose to accept God's ability to rule as the best method. (see above)

"I suppose these computers we use just materialized out of thin air." - No. Making computers takes only a fraction of the knowledge necessary to create life, yet they were made by someone.

I'm not stating science isn't good. Quite the contrary. There are many advancements in living from science. Albeit, the vast majority of them is simply a copy of creation (if not all), from Velcro to Sonar. Name something science has made that isn't already done in creation. Your list will be short at best.

So how do we know the bible is true? So how do we know the bible is inspired by your god? Reasonable questions. Not for this topic.

On Matthew 4 the facts are that this isn't specifically talking about the earth. My statement to you is clear: When the Bible talks about science, it does not conflict with science. You however, insist on taking a passage that is not discussing science, and turn it into a scientific observation. You want to "whisk away" content when you feel inclined. Just as you want to state the Genesis creation account isn't detailed enough for you. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, when the Bible talks about science it does not conflict about science. I gave you two scriptures that directly talked about the earth. Not only are they correct the observations are clearly years ahead of scientific discovery. I'll take your lack of response on these two scriptures as acceptance. You brought up Matthew 4 and it's not applicable.

If you consider it an error of omission, than I say lets eventually talk about the hypothetical protobiont. Try not to be apologetic about it.

So you still are left with a supernatural being inducing illnesses. We now know that doesn't happen. Sounds like a hypothesis. You believe in evolution so it's even possible (to you) humans eventually could become supernatural. Prove it.

It seems as though your ability to trust the validity of any written documentation is time based. The Bible has much of it's testimony based on multiple witnesses of events written down. In a court of law this evidence carries great weight and has the best ability to stand time whereas other forms of evidence would not. Alot of lawyers in Texas? Ask around.

"Yes. For example Darwin left us his theory, books, papers and journals. Also there are the books, papers and journals by his comtemporaries. We can crossexamine Darwin with evidence uncovered since his death. We can crossexamine all of the material he left us with modern methods."

Excellent. Where are the specific birds so I can examine those birds. How do I know he didn't import some birds?(I'm not saying he did) How do you know his specific observations wasn't altered or manufactured data? Where's the Beagle? I'd like to examine the boat. Potentially buried in mud doesn't count.

[chillbilly]

Where are the specific birds so I can examine those birds. How do I know he didn't import some birds?(I'm not saying he did) How do you know his specific observations wasn't altered or manufactured data? Where's the Beagle? I'd like to examine the boat. Potentially buried in mud doesn't count
__________________________________________________ ______

Don't hold your breath waiting for the mountains of "evidence" to appear in the form of birds or potentially buried speculation.

Someone please tell poor geer that a 150 year old theory with accompanying hypotheticals used to prop it up are not credible evidence.

[chillbilly]

To imposs your standard of time on God is egocentric at best.
---------------------------------------------------------

This is true and has been noted more than once.
The bible refers to time and the relative misunderstanding of humans attempting to understand the unfathomable.
Maybe you missed the memo.

Man attempting to apply our concepts as they relate to God's intent are limited at best.
Most religious scholars and those with a better than vague understanding of biblical text already know this.
Attempting to represent people who believe in God as narrow minded or not midful of the abstract is a typical atheist ploy used in an attempt to make atheists feel better.
Doesn't mean a thing and is a worn out bunch of babble.

However, we still see the Biblical illiterates twisting the text in a fashionable attempt to render it illegitimate, now don't we?

The truth of the matter is that faith in a creator is just too big a step for many, especially those consumed with arrogance and self indulgence.

[chillbilly]

Nah, Abio is a fact.
__________________________________________________ _____

Still waiting for some coherent sentences or, at least, a paragraph that would lend credence to this asinine assertion.
Start from your "factual" beginning and work your way forward. Just the facts.

See geer, fact is differentiated from fiction by the innate ability of sane people to recognize that fact is evidence that can be shown to be true, while fiction is born out of assumption and imagination.

If all you can conjure up is a sentence, that would be far better than anything you've produced to date.....other than the cad, one liners that just make you look foolish.
Just one sentence........

[acmanko]

Its a fact that Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible. Roman documents don't list his name. Its a fact that the earth is more then 6,800 years old. its a fact that many books were left out of the Bible and what you read today was translated by Catholic Monks.

[chillbilly]

Theories are immune to age but not to evidence.
__________________________________________________ _______

LOL Maybe you could explain why there is a huge abundance of scientific theories modified or deleted due to evidentiary findings and inconsistencies?

See geer, your "peer reviewed" scientists are so busy extending their hands to secure funding, their theories readily adapt or fit anything that will get their grubby paws on da' money.

Yeah, science has a tough enough time testing and researching the testable models in front of them much less untestable supposition based on hypotheticals.

Look at the scientific data for approved drugs in the marketplace as a shining example of your "peer reviewed" scientists limitations.
More side effects than benefits, no long term data availaible, prescription deaths at an all time high...

hmmm, maybe science should concentrate on known factors that have merit and real benefit instead of attempting to solve a riddle...with a riddle.
Stop trying to put scientific research on such a high pedestal...you just insult everyone's intelligence and make yourself look foolish.

[sysint]

Nah, Abio is a fact. - I was going to ask about the hypothetical protobiant.... the missing link of abiogenesis.

Its a fact that Jesus is only mentioned in the Bible. Roman documents don't list his name. For many years they didn't think Pontius Pilate existed in name other than the Bible. Time proved the Bible correct.(1961) There is a point here?

Its a fact that the earth is more then 6,800 years old. Again, your point is?

Its a fact that many books were left out of the Bible and what you read today was translated by Catholic Monks. Proof for this is? I'd challenge that. Dead Sea Scrolls? Sinaiticus? Masoretic Text? Magdalen Papyrus?

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
The Bible states what God will do but not when. If you knew "when" your actions would include bias, therefore the outcome could be challenged by other parties. The decision not to announce a date was not only credible but logical and reasonable from a legal standpoint.Nevertheless, your god knows the date and the outcome even if the date was not revealed in the bible. What is the holdup?



The Bible states various areas where people were cured of sicknesses and resurrected. The Bible indicates these are the things God will do on a larger scale in the future for the people that choose to accept God's ability to rule as the best method. (see above)Resurrection is biologically impossible, at least to this date.

Again you are asserting that the events in the bible are true but you have no corroboration. Also incredible events require incredible evidence. there is not even any ordinary evidence to support resurrections or healings.


Knowledge to create life? Not necessarily. Chemical reactions and processes can produce amazing results.

[QUOTE]I'm not stating science isn't good. Quite the contrary. There are many advancements in living from science. Albeit, the vast majority of them is simply a copy of creation (if not all), from Velcro to Sonar. Name something science has made that isn't already done in creation. Your list will be short at best.Well, my Titleist Pro Titanium, graphite/steel dual matrix shaft driver has no known reference to creation.

Your claim that a vast majority of of them is simply a copy of creation sounds exactly like the Father in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" boasting that almost everything was invented by the Greeks.

Your claim a wild stretch.



Reasonable questions. Not for this topic.You are making extravagant claims in this topic. The credibility of your sources is vital.






On Matthew 4 the facts are that this isn't specifically talking about the earth. My statement to you is clear: When the Bible talks about science, it does not conflict with science.It does when interpreted literally. Perhaps this would be a good time to ask if you believe the bible is innerrant?



You however, insist on taking a passage that is not discussing science, and turn it into a scientific observation.Well, you say it is not discussing science but the bible makes an observation that implies the earth is flat. This is a scientific observation.


Or is this to be taken as metaphor?



Just as you want to state the Genesis creation account isn't detailed enough for you. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, when the Bible talks about science it does not conflict about science.But then you assert that the order of creation does not conflict with the scientific order when in fact it does. I am not the one trying to dovetail science and the bible.




I gave you two scriptures that directly talked about the earth. Not only are they correct the observations are clearly years ahead of scientific discovery. I'll take your lack of response on these two scriptures as acceptance. You brought up Matthew 4 and it's not applicable.It is generally accepted that the Greeks came up with a round earth first. The Jewish folks being in close proximity and contact with the Greeks obviously borrowed the idea from them.


Sounds like a hypothesis.Nope, just medical fact.



You believe in evolution so it's even possible (to you) humans eventually could become supernatural. Prove it.I can't imagine how you dreamed up this silly notion. There is nothing repeat nothing about Evolution that would ever lead one to believe that a supernatural result is possible. As a matter of fact there is no rule or law or evidence that demands living things must continue to evolve



It seems as though your ability to trust the validity of any written documentation is time based.Not at all.


The Bible has much of it's testimony based on multiple witnesses of events written down. In a court of law this evidence carries great weight and has the best ability to stand time whereas other forms of evidence would not. Alot of lawyers in Texas? Ask around.It would be judged hearsay.




Excellent. Where are the specific birds so I can examine those birds.In scientific drawings and papers which has corroboration as to their authenticity.



The finches on the Galpagos Islands vary in easily identifiable ways from the finches of the rest of the world. Any competent scientist of Darwin's day would have easily detected a fraud.


[QUOTE]How do you know his specific observations wasn't altered or manufactured data? Well, Darwin, his theory, his writings, his life and his work have been rigorously scrutinized for over 150 years without fraud being found.




Where's the Beagle? I'd like to examine the boat. Potentially buried in mud doesn't count. Marine archaeologists are certain they have found the Beagle.
After it is recovered and restored you may fly to England and examine it to your heart's content.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

[QUOTE]Don't hold your breath waiting for the mountains of "evidence" to appear in the form of birds or potentially buried speculation.You were saying?


Someone please tell poor geer that a 150 year old theory with accompanying hypotheticals used to prop it up are not credible evidence.What are these accompanying hypotheticals?

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

[QUOTE]Still waiting for some coherent sentences or, at least, a paragraph that would lend credence to this asinine assertion.
Start from your "factual" beginning and work your way forward. Just the facts.Abio is a fact. If you don't think it is a fact, then state your reasoning.




See geer, fact is differentiated from fiction by the innate ability of sane people to recognize that fact is evidence that can be shown to be true, while fiction is born out of assumption and imagination.Okay dokey here is a fact of Abio. Once there was no life on Earth, now there is. How do like them apples?




If all you can conjure up is a sentence, that would be far better than anything you've produced to date.....other than the cad, one liners that just make you look foolish. I'm not the one who believes in talking snakes.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
LOL Maybe you could explain why there is a huge abundance of scientific theories modified or deleted due to evidentiary findings and inconsistencies?Maybe you should give some examples of theories that have been modified or deleted strictly on the basis of age.






See geer, your "peer reviewed" scientists are so busy extending their hands to secure funding, their theories readily adapt or fit anything that will get their grubby paws on da' money.Hmmmmmmm...........do they. You should then have no dificulty citing specific instances of this and be able to show that this practice is the prevailing mode in science. We'll eagerly await your findings.





Yeah, science has a tough enough time testing and researching the testable models in front of them much less untestable supposition based on hypotheticals.Ummm.....if they are untestable then they are not science and nobody would be working on them. We have been over this many times before.

Hypotheticals? Hmmmmmm........hypotheses are required to have some supporting evidence and be open to testing.

Perhaps a few hours studyimg scientific terms would help with this regrettable trait you have of self confirming ignorance.




Look at the scientific data for approved drugs in the marketplace as a shining example of your "peer reviewed" scientists limitations.
More side effects than benefits, no long term data availaible, prescription deaths at an all time high...Nothing in science is 100%. we have been over this as well.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable if you avoided medicine altogether. Next time you are diagnosed with a raging infection just walk it off.




hmmm, maybe science should concentrate on known factors that have merit and real benefit instead of attempting to solve a riddle...with a riddle.
Stop trying to put scientific research on such a high pedestal...you just insult everyone's intelligence and make yourself look foolish.You have shown by your repeated ignorance that you have little intelligence to insult.

[Edited by geerair on 08-22-2006 at 12:41 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
I was going to ask about the hypothetical protobiant.... the missing link of abiogenesis.Ask away.

[sysint]

What is the holdup? Not specified. Maybe God is waiting for you to get smarter.
Resurrection is biologically impossible, at least to this date. To you. You already conceed it may be possible with the ability. Therefore, it is possible a supernatural being is capable of a resurrection.

Again you are asserting that the events in the bible are true but you have no corroboration. Also incredible events require incredible evidence. there is not even any ordinary evidence to support resurrections or healings. A guy was dead. Now I see he is not dead. Hardly "incredible evidence". Rather ordinary observation.

Not necessarily. Chemical reactions and processes can produce amazing results. Dismissed.
Well, my Titleist Pro Titanium, graphite/steel dual matrix shaft driver has no known reference to creation.

Very short list. It's interesting to me that those arms you use to swing that club have a better composite than your graphic shaft called collagen. Maybe you should have somebody design you a better club. Last time I checked it is "generally accepted" that collagen composites existed before your golf club or any other golf club.

On Matthew 4 the facts are that this isn't specifically talking about the earth. My statement to you is clear: When the Bible talks about science, it does not conflict with science.

When the Bible talks specifically about the earth it is correct. When it talks about the temptation of Jesus it is correct. But you cannot substitute the point of the topic when it suits you. There is something called "context", whereas you are "quote mining". In this instance it could be that Jesus was taken up to a mountain for a slide show, or simply in a vision. The Bible doesn't state this exactly when you examine the context. However, yet again in the two examples I have given, there isn't a question of context. Again, you apparently accept those two scriptures or maybe they don't suit your ability to misrepresent.

But then you assert that the order of creation does not conflict with the scientific order when in fact it does. I am not the one trying to dovetail science and the bible. There's a statement contradicting mine. Back it up. Thus far you have only stated there isn't enough detail. Now, you are contending it is out of order. Until you have further information you have no argument. I'm not trying to dovetail anything. I'll stick to my statement: The Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, when the Bible talks about science it does not conflict with science.

It is generally accepted that the Greeks came up with a round earth first. The Jewish folks being in close proximity and contact with the Greeks obviously borrowed the idea from them.

It's generally accepted that the scriptures I quoted earlier were originally written before the Greek nation was established. I won't except your term "obviously borrowed". I'm not fond of "generally accepted" either. See how I can use it too?

I can't imagine how you dreamed up this silly notion. There is nothing repeat nothing about Evolution that would ever lead one to believe that a supernatural result is possible. As a matter of fact there is no rule or law or evidence that demands living things must continue to evolve Depends on your definition of supernatural. I said it's possible, not probable or likely. Your Evolution doctrine sure grinds to a halt at certain points. All the Evolutionist Trekkies are steamin' mad at you now. Nobody can become a "Q".

And so ends... because your next quip "It would be judged hearsay" has not a shred of investigation attached to it. Additionally, "generally accepted" and "obviously borrowed" means you don't want to invest the time in discussion anyway.

Too bad. I think it's hard for 'Abio to be a fact' when the steps contain a hypothetical protobiant or progenote. Any progenotes out there? Seems like point of controversy.

Anyway, quip away at someone else. I had already warned you that this behavior isn't worth a discussion.

John 9:24-33

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
Not specified. Maybe God is waiting for you to get smarter.More likely, god is an invention of man.





To you.To everybody.


You already conceed it may be possible with the ability. Therefore, it is possible a supernatural being is capable of a resurrection.Yes, an omnipotent deity can do anything. Unfortunately there is no compelling evidence that one exsists.




A guy was dead. Now I see he is not dead. Hardly "incredible evidence". Rather ordinary observation.Resurrection is biologically impossible. If you assert otherwise, you must have extrordinary evidence of this event. You have at best a fabricated story.


Dismissed.Disregarded.







Very short list.Ah, you wanted the entire list? Easy enough, just look at everything science has produced, creation has produced nothing.




It's interesting to me that those arms you use to swing that club have a better composite than your graphic shaft called collagen. Maybe you should have somebody design you a better club. Better?

Can collagen outlast steel or graphite? No.

Can collagen survive a 125 MPH collision with a hard object? No

Can collagen be formed into a tube capable of being attached to a clubhead and capable of retaining its shape while propelling a ball 300 yards? No.



I think I'll stick with graphite and steel.



Last time I checked it is "generally accepted" that collagen composites existed before your golf club or any other golf club.Yes. So?



On Matthew 4 the facts are that this isn't specifically talking about the earth. My statement to you is clear: When the Bible talks about science, it does not conflict with science.A literal interpretation of the bible emphatically does.


When the Bible talks specifically about the earth it is correct. When it talks about the temptation of Jesus it is correct. But you cannot substitute the point of the topic when it suits you. There is something called "context", whereas you are "quote mining". In this instance it could be that Jesus was taken up to a mountain for a slide show, or simply in a vision. The Bible doesn't state this exactly when you examine the context. However, yet again in the two examples I have given, there isn't a question of context. Again, you apparently accept those two scriptures or maybe they don't suit your ability to misrepresent. Either this passage is metaphorical or it is scientifically bogus.

BTW-I see you ducked the innerrancy question.





There's a statement contradicting mine. Back it up. Thus far you have only stated there isn't enough detail.Back it up? Already done in an earlier post. The bible asserts that the earth was created before the sun and the stars, plants were created before light, the earth was created before light. None of this is the actual order.



Now, you are contending it is out of order. Until you have further information you have no argument. I'm not trying to dovetail anything. I'll stick to my statement: The Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, when the Bible talks about science it does not conflict with science.See above.


It's generally accepted that the scriptures I quoted earlier were originally written before the Greek nation was established. Yet historians credit the Greeks with being the first to assert the world is round.




I won't except your term "obviously borrowed".How about plagiarized?


I'm not fond of "generally accepted" either. See how I can use it too? You can use it but without evidence it means nothing.



Depends on your definition of supernatural. I said it's possible, not probable or likely.Invoking the supernatural puts you outside science.



Your Evolution doctrine sure grinds to a halt at certain points.Yes. Fortunately it halts at fantasy and the supernatural.



All the Evolutionist Trekkies are steamin' mad at you now. Nobody can become a "Q".Nah, they never expected it. Creationists are more likely to swallow fantasy since they easily swallow a literal genesis.


And so ends... because your next quip "It would be judged hearsay" has not a shred of investigation attached to it. Additionally, "generally accepted" and "obviously borrowed" means you don't want to invest the time in discussion anyway.Seeing as how your source is one big circular fallacy, it would seem you are the one not prepared to invest in a credible discussion.




Too bad. I think it's hard for 'Abio to be a fact' when the steps contain a hypothetical protobiant or progenote. Any progenotes out there? Seems like point of controversy.What you think is an argument from ignorance and not valid. Abio is a fact, once there was no life on earth and now there is. Care to refute this fact?


Go to Pubmed. There are 117 scientific articles concerning protobionts.






Anyway, quip away at someone else. I had already warned you that this behavior isn't worth a discussion.Suit yourself. Your arguments are mere apologetics backed by nothing more than tribal myths.

[chillbilly]

You should then have no dificulty citing specific instances of this and be able to show that this practice is the prevailing mode in science.
__________________________________________________ _______
Yeah and you should have no problem showing that it isn't a regular practice. Lack of thorough research to line your fat cat scientists and drug peddler's pockets, untested theories killing people. Hell, most people gobbling down science's latest pill probably would be better off "walking it off". LOL


We'll eagerly await your findings.
__________________________________________________ ________
You need to bring forth the "findings", not me.

Merely explaining abio by stating "life didn't exist and now it does" could be a statement made by creationists as well.
You explain man's beginnings about as well as your peer reviewed scientists explain it.
Comic relief is good though.
How do you like them apples?




You keep looking to peer review.....
I'll be focused on God review.


__________________________________________________ _________

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Yeah and you should have no problem showing that it isn't a regular practice. Lack of thorough research to line your fat cat scientists and drug peddler's pockets, untested theories killing people. Hell, most people gobbling down science's latest pill probably would be better off "walking it off". LOLI made no assertion, you did. Support it or go home.




You need to bring forth the "findings", not me.Your assertion, you support it or go home.


Merely explaining abio by stating "life didn't exist and now it does" could be a statement made by creationists as well. Sorry but Abio is only open to credible scientific theories with credible scietific evidence supporting it.

Your literal interpretation of creation does not qualify.


Try again. Come see us when you have some evidence that does more than sit in a corner and smell.





You explain man's beginnings about as well as your peer reviewed scientists explain it.Man's beginnings are easy, we have fossils and everything.



Comic relief is good though.Well, your posts tend more toward the silly than the humorous.




You keep looking to peer review.....
I'll be focused on God review.Deal.


__________________________________________________ _________

[Edited by geerair on 08-22-2006 at 11:13 PM]

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair
I made no assertion, you did. Support it or go home.
__________________________________________________ _______
No problem. Direct indictments of modern science's role as peddlers and the "science" of deception for grant money is as common as the King James Bible

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=28875

http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138


http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/gerth.htm

Read tons of articles like these.




Sorry but Abio is only open to credible scientific theories with credible scietific evidence supporting it.
__________________________________________________ ________
There's a problem with your credibility factor.

Any theory can be considered credible until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Evidence that would corroborate fledgling theories about abio and lend credence to the hypotheses is in short supply, especially when the criterion cannot be verified to be a workable component of the theory.



Your literal interpretation of creation does not qualify.
__________________________________________________ ________
Any evidence qualifies until it is discounted with verifiable proof.


Try again. Come see us when you have some evidence that does more than sit in a corner and smell.
__________________________________________________ ________

A 150 year ape old theory that has yet to be proven wouldn't smell very good either.




Man's beginnings are easy, we have fossils and everything.
__________________________________________________ ________
Incomplete fossil records hardly explain how man and the universe came into existence.


Here's where geer can't put a paragraph together....any time he is asked to show a logical process that would initiate the existence of all things and can be validated through logical testing... or at least, seems probable.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
No problem. Direct indictments of modern science's role as peddlers and the "science" of deception for grant money is as common as the King James Bible

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=28875

http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138


http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~scotch/gerth.htm

Read tons of articles like these.Yawn. The drug industry is a greedy, corner cutting business. Who knew?

Your articles deal with the business end not the science end.



There's a problem with your credibility factor.

Any theory can be considered credible until the evidence suggests otherwise.I would say any scientific theory can be considered credible until credible scientific evidence contradicts it.



Evidence that would corroborate fledgling theories about abio and lend credence to the hypotheses is in short supply, especially when the criterion cannot be verified to be a workable component of the theory.There is a lot of work yet to be done on Abio, but there is enough evidence to raise Abio to the level of scientific theory.




Any evidence qualifies until it is discounted with verifiable proof.Well, that would leave a literal intepretation of creation out as it has no credible scientific evidence supporting it. Perhaps you can supply some?

Also, your statement quite nicely supports Abio. and evolution.



A 150 year ape old theory that has yet to be proven wouldn't smell very good either.True, that is why evolution doesn't assert this.





Incomplete fossil records hardly explain how man and the universe came into existence.True, that is why I have never asserted this.







Here's where geer can't put a paragraph together....any time he is asked to show a logical process that would initiate the existence of all things and can be validated through logical testing... or at least, seems probable.BB. Been there done that.

Sorry if you are scientifically illerate but that is your problem not mine.

[sysint]

"I made no assertion, you did. Support it or go home. "

Chilly, Geer makes assetions he doesn't support all the time.

Examine the thread. What goes on is that he doesn't support statements, and doesn't reply to others reasoning. Case in point is the steps in creation I stated. Only much later did he bring out his supposed contradictory information but he couldn't see fit to bring it to the table when it was specifically mentioned. His first response was "not enough detail". This was in fact a lie by him as he has now stated a position, and a faulty one at that.

Geer isn't debating. He is simply getting off on little quips.

Chilly - Geer says "Abio is a fact". Are progenotes a fact? Can you show me a live progenote? It's part of the steps in abiogensis as discussed in the doctrinal talk-origins site. Scientists should have no trouble making them since they hypothetically know so much about them. I get the feeling you will say no along which will agree with more scientists than you think. I also came across a bulletin board where someone was lamenting some of his peers giving up on progenotes stating in effect they have some valid position but it opens the door for the creationists.... sounds like peer pressure instead of peer review to me. I've got to dig that up...

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
I made no assertion, you did. Support it or go home.

Chilly, Geer makes assetions he doesn't support all the time.Ask and ye shall receive.

Of course, what I post is mainstream science and should be known by anyone with even a casual interest in science or current events or paid attention during science class while at school.

That being said, perhaps the fault is mine in expecting that people who argue science would know a bit about it.

On the other hand, most if not all of the science deniers here argue on the basis of their religious view and not on the basis of science and evidence.



Examine the thread. What goes on is that he doesn't support statements, and doesn't reply to others reasoning.
Case in point is the steps in creation I stated. Only much later did he bring out his supposed contradictory information but he couldn't see fit to bring it to the table when it was specifically mentioned. His first response was "not enough detail". This was in fact a lie by him as he has now stated a position, and a faulty one at that. Hmmmmmm.......in reviewing the thread, what I find is an immediate reply to your order of creation in which I pointed out the order as stated by the bible was not the actual order.

Well there was another reply by another member between your question and my reply but why quibble?

Actually it is you who has not replied to the questions I posted concerning the order of creation. As a matter of fact, you have ignored my questions until you posted this whiny epistle.



Geer isn't debating. He is simply getting off on little quips.Quite effective and substantive little quips.

[sysint]

It's in the other thread. So, it's relevant unless you change opinions thread to thread.

[sysint]

quote: Originally posted by sysint

Light/Dark visible on the surface.
Dividing of water.
Dividing of land/water.
Vegetation
Sun/Moon Visible
Birds and Water animals
Domestic and other land animals (wild)
Man

The account does make a point of stating creation of things was "after their kind".

How do your scientists have a progression that is different from above?


Orignally posted by Geerair
You will have to be more precise on your progression. The general terms and the progression have a lot of wiggle room in them.

Now your new position:

"Back it up? Already done in an earlier post. The bible asserts that the earth was created before the sun and the stars, plants were created before light, the earth was created before light. None of this is the actual order."

.......... see above.

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint

Light/Dark visible on the surface.
Dividing of water.
Dividing of land/water.
Vegetation
Sun/Moon Visible
Birds and Water animals
Domestic and other land animals (wild)
Man

The account does make a point of stating creation of things was "after their kind".

How do your scientists have a progression that is different from above?The earth did not preceed the stars and the sun.


Orignally posted by Geerair
You will have to be more precise on your progression. The general terms and the progression have a lot of wiggle room in them.

Now your new position:

"Back it up? Already done in an earlier post. The bible asserts that the earth was created before the sun and the stars, plants were created before light, the earth was created before light. None of this is the actual order."

.......... see above.[/quote]Exactly, the order according to science is precise, none of this waffling visible/not visible, dividing of the waters after the fact apologetics.


The bible is quite clear on its order of creation. That the order of biblical creation does not fit with the actual order calls for massive apologetics to rehabilitate it.

This is precisely what I meant when I asked for you to be more specific. Your apologetics are so ambiguous and logically inconsistent that you could drive a truck through the gaps.

[sysint]

"The earth did not preceed the stars and the sun. " - The Bible doesn't state this. You are incorrect.

And, ambiguous as you are I have to clarify whether you disagree with my list of events or it's something you think you read.

[geerair]

Gen. 1:1 In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth

Gen.1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and it was so.



Looks quite clear that the earth was created before the sun and the stars.

[sysint]

So, you don't disagree with the list of events as I stated?
For clarification: Are you saying you disagree with what I say the Bible states?

[geerair]

Originally posted by sysint
So, you don't disagree with the list of events as I stated?
For clarification: Are you saying you disagree with what I say the Bible states? Your list is not the bibles list.

[chillbilly]

BB. Been there done that.

Sorry if you are scientifically illerate but that is your problem not mine.
__________________________________________________ _________
Maybe, but your problem is explaining this theory you endorse with more than a one-liner or a meaningless quip.
You have yet to explain your ideas on the theory of big bang and I challenge you to begin to do so.
If you're so adamant about bb, why not enlighten everyone so we can all understand what makes it such a believable concept?


Biblical creation is a sequence of events that can be examined with the utmost scrutiny.
I challenge you to explain your version of bb and let's see how well it holds up to scrutiny.

Now, I'll understand if you can't explain the basic elemental stages off bb and the hypotheses that accompany them, but that would mean that you are as illiterate about the science you so vehemently endorse as the next Tom, Dick or Harry.


See geer, science doesn't collectively agree on how our universe came to exist either.


Imagine that.

[chillbilly]

Big Bang Called Into Question

by Cameron Lawrence

Aug 22, 2006 | Post Archive
Historically, religion is perhaps science's chief antagonist -- and vice versa. Among the greatest of the debates between the two groups concerns the origin of the universe as we know it. But what happens when science opposes science? This sort of thing happens all the time, but some new and radical ideas about the Big Bang theory from Professor Neil Turok have led to a hostile debate in the scientific community.
__________________________________________________ ________
One has to wonder why the debate would turn so hostile.
Stinks of dogma.



Turok, a professor of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge University in England, presented some fundamentally different ideas about the origins of the universe at a conference last week. These ideas were radical enough to elicit open scorn from his fellow physicists and mathematicians.
__________________________________________________ _______
Open scorn for a different theory?
Stinks of dogma.




Professor Alan Guth of MIT fiercely contested Turok's theories. Jonathan Leake of "The Australian" reports, "The conference, organised by the U.S.'s National Academy of Sciences, froze in embarrassment as Guth attacked Turok and his theories - and called up a slide of a monkey to illustrate his comments." Childish? Perhaps, but Guth and a host of scientists have based their careers upon the Big Bang theory. To question it poses a grave threat to their life's work.
__________________________________________________ ________

A threat to their life's work?
Stinks of blind faith.





It all started with Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. The theory showed that the universe could both expand and contract, which opened the door to the Big Bang theory. Leake explains, "The clear implication was that if things are flying apart now they must once have been much closer together – and that perhaps they all began at one single, tiny point." From this point, the Big Bang theory evolved. "The Big Bang theory has a lot going for it," Leake says. "It fits with the observed expansion of the universe, the age of oldest stars and the ratio of light and heavy elements found around the universe."

But what caused the Big Bang? That's the source of Guth and Turok's clash. Leake gives the back story:

In the 1970s, Guth was one of those who realised that the Big Bang theory failed to explain how a hot chaotic fireball could become the cool universe with stable clusters of galaxies we see today.

Rather than challenge the idea that time and space began with the Big Bang, he suggested the new universe had suddenly expanded trillions of times in a millionth of a second. That idea, called inflation, did such a good mathematical job of explaining the shape of the universe that it was adopted far and wide.

Guth himself has built his career on it. Recently, however, it has become clear that the theory has major flaws. There is, for example, no widely accepted way for physics to explain how such "inflation" could have happened.
__________________________________________________ ______
Geer's gonna' explain how inflation or expansion could have happened....aren't you geer?






Crash or Bang?

Turok and his associates are simply fed up with these flaws. Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University are among Turok's supporters. Steinhardt's theory asserts that the Big Bang was not the beginning of history but rather one of many events like it. His belief is that the bang was actually a collision of two universes each existing in separate dimensions -- something that happens every trillion years, he theorizes.

Essentially, those in opposition to the theory are threatened because, if it proves correct, "...time has always existed and so has the universe. What’s more they will always exist, and so there is no need for inflation or for a creation event – or perhaps even a creator."
__________________________________________________ ________
Someone will have to explain how these supposedly intelligent men are so enamored by this feeling that religion is threatened by the notion of finding evident truths about our existence.
Small man syndrome.







So some scientists think the "Big Bang" is actually a "Big Crash." What's your theory? Tell us.

__________________________________________________ _______

Yeah geer, tell us YOUR theory. That is, if you don't feel threatened by the scrutiny it deserves.

[Edited by chillbilly on 08-26-2006 at 12:33 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Maybe, but your problem is explaining this theory you endorse with more than a one-liner or a meaningless quip.
You have yet to explain your ideas on the theory of big bang and I challenge you to begin to do so.
If you're so adamant about bb, why not enlighten everyone so we can all understand what makes it such a believable concept?Okey Dokey.

A singularity expanded, eventually leading to the formation of life, the universe and everything.



Biblical creation is a sequence of events that can be examined with the utmost scrutiny.
I challenge you to explain your version of bb and let's see how well it holds up to scrutiny.Already done. See above.


Now, I'll understand if you can't explain the basic elemental stages off bb and the hypotheses that accompany them, but that would mean that you are as illiterate about the science you so vehemently endorse as the next Tom, Dick or Harry.Already done. See Above.



See geer, science doesn't collectively agree on how our universe came to exist either.


Imagine that. Thank you Albert.

[Edited by geerair on 08-26-2006 at 10:38 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

One has to wonder why the debate would turn so hostile.
Scientists are passionate folks.




Stinks of dogma.Tea rose.





Open scorn for a different theory?Certainly. That is science.





Stinks of dogma.Hibiscus.





A threat to their life's work?Nothing is ever proven in science. We've been over this numerous times.




Stinks of blind faith.Strawberry.





Geer's gonna' explain how inflation or expansion could have happened....aren't you geer?Certainly.







Someone will have to explain how these supposedly intelligent men are so enamored by this feeling that religion is threatened by the notion of finding evident truths about our existence.
Small man syndrome.Bawhahahahahah. They could care less for your superstitions or your big guy in the sky.




Yeah geer, tell us YOUR theory. That is, if you don't feel threatened by the scrutiny it deserves.I have been reading a bit on brane theory and it is intriguing. Right now I'll stick with the Guth version.

What is hilarious is that you posted this thinking you could score a few points. What you don't realize is that whichever theory becomes the dominant paradigm, you still have the BB and the brane theory crushes your superstitions. Bawhahahahahahahha.

You have cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Edited by geerair on 08-26-2006 at 12:16 PM]

[chillbilly]

A singularity expanded, eventually leading to the formation of life, the universe and everything.
__________________________________________________ _______
Well, there's a 5 star explanation.

What did this "singularity" consist of, what caused this "singularity" to expand, and how did this phenomena produce cellular life forms?

[Edited by chillbilly on 08-26-2006 at 07:21 PM]

[chillbilly]

What is hilarious is that you posted this thinking you could score a few points.
__________________________________________________ ________
Score a few points?
There is absolutely no one on this thread or this site, for that matter, that I would be interested in scoring points with.
Keeping score is your schtick geer, not mine.

I simply asked you to elaborate on what you believe and why.
Again, you have failed dismally in imparting anything that is even remotely satisfactory as far as explanations go.







What you don't realize is that whichever theory becomes the dominant paradigm, you still have the BB and the brane theory crushes your superstitions. Bawhahahahahahahha.
__________________________________________________ ________
I'm all ears. Bring it on. No need to clam up now.
Illustrate how solid your theory is.
Either one or any others. Doesn't matter, as long as you explain it in a manner that is not a whimsical quip.
Clear and concise. That's what we're looking for.

If you cannot elaborate and provide something substantial, go home.

Your problem lies in your inability to prop your beliefs up for inspection and scrutiny............................
yet you're the first buzzard on the highway looking for roadkill when inspecting clear and concise religious doctrine.

Kinda'indicates what you're all about in a nutshell.

[Edited by chillbilly on 08-26-2006 at 10:47 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Well, there's a 5 star explanation.I thought so.




What did this "singularity" consist of, what caused this "singularity" to expand, and how did this phenomena produce cellular life forms?

A. Energy and matter. Duh!!!!

B. Didn't you read the article you posted?

C. Nobody said it produced celluar life forms.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Score a few points?
There is absolutely no one on this thread or this site, for that matter, that I would be interested in scoring points with.
Probably because you saw that would be futile.




I simply asked you to elaborate on what you believe and why.
Again, you have failed dismally in imparting anything that is even remotely satisfactory as far as explanations go.Gee, look at the science threads. BB galore with links, explanations, answered questions and even pretty pictures and diagrams for those infatuated with such things.

Of course I am not responsible for the apparent Swiss Cheese configuration of your brain.




I'm all ears. Bring it on. No need to clam up now.
Illustrate how solid your theory is.
Either one or any others. Doesn't matter, as long as you explain it in a manner that is not a whimsical quip.
Clear and concise. That's what we're looking for.Read the article you posted. This time try to understand it. It will keep you from losing any more body parts in a fit of spite.



If you cannot elaborate and provide something substantial, go home.Already done noseless. We have several posts you can recall and read all about the BB. Remember?




Your problem lies in your inability to prop your beliefs up for inspection and scrutiny............................Your problem is that you have a brain like a Swiss Cheese coupled with a prodigious science illiteracy.




yet you're the first buzzard on the highway looking for roadkill when inspecting clear and concise religious doctrine.Ah yes, talking snakes and donkeys and such.


Kinda'indicates what you're all about in a nutshell.Bawhahahahahahahahah. Look in the mirror.

[chillbilly]

Energy and matter. Duh!!!!
__________________________________________________ ______

That's not a definitive answer. What matter? What energy?
From what source was this energy and matter produced?
Back to square one.
We have asked you ad nauseum to supply specific fact to corroborate this theory and you point into oblivion each and every time.
The reason why your nose is bleeding for such a long period of time is because you cannot give a simple explanation supplied in your own words.
Thank God for the internet, huh geer?
Tilt your head back and suck it back into your gut.
You'll be OK.




Nobody said it produced celluar life forms.
__________________________________________________ ______
That's right. They didn't. And they have no evidence to substantiate evolutionary models resulting from this theory that you, an ardent follower, can't explain in it's simplest sequence.

I don't blame you though... repeating your mantra with catchwords and incomplete thoughts must be very uncomfortable for you.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

That's not a definitive answer. What matter? What energy?
From what source was this energy and matter produced?
Back to square one.Read the article you posted.

Jeez, we should have a rule that before cutting and pasting an article, the paster must read and understand the article.






We have asked you ad nauseum to supply specific fact to corroborate this theory and you point into oblivion each and every time.Not my fault you don't know a fact from a fart.


The reason why your nose is bleeding for such a long period of time is because you cannot give a simple explanation supplied in your own words.Priceless. I give a simple explanation and you whine there is no detail. I give you detail and you whine for a simple explanation. Make up your mind.





Thank God for the internet, huh geer?Yes, you and your kind have provided comic entertainment rarely surpassed for its laughability and guffaw worthy ignorance.




Tilt your head back and suck it back into your gut.
You'll be OK.Priceless from someone so expert at cutting off his nose in a fit of rage and spite.





That's right. They didn't. And they have no evidence to substantiate evolutionary models resulting from this theory that you, an ardent follower, can't explain in it's simplest sequence.Hmmmmmmm......BB theory is cosmology, Evolution theory is biology. We have been over this many, many times before.

I'm trying to provide you with the education you obviously missed in school but your swiss cheese mind is proving to be a daunting obstacle.

Perhaps some memory improvement courses would likely be beneficial to you.







I don't blame you though... repeating your mantra with catchwords and incomplete thoughts must be very uncomfortable for you. On the contrary, it serves to provide amusement watching your cyber eruptions of frustration, spite and confusion.


Priceless in the extreme.

[chillbilly]

Hmmmmmmm......BB theory is cosmology, Evolution theory is biology. We have been over this many, many times before.
__________________________________________________ ________

These theories are interrelated.
Obviously, we cannot understand evolutionary processes that involve cellular life forms until we can separate fact from fiction as it pertains to how these life forms originated.

[chillbilly]

I'm trying to provide you with the education you obviously missed in school but your swiss cheese mind is proving to be a daunting obstacle.
__________________________________________________ _______

Thanks, nutty professor. I'll decline the lesson in futility from someone who can't teach themselves the definition of evidence. LOL

Some noteworthy substance is required when attempting to illustrate a theory or impart some knowledge.

Stick with your day job as a heating and air stiff.

[chillbilly]

I give you detail and you whine for a simple explanation.
__________________________________________________ _______

That's a laugher. Where is this detailed explanation YOU have provided to support your beliefs?

[chillbilly]

Read the article you posted.
__________________________________________________ ______

Sigh..

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo


I have read the article. What does it have to do with you posting your views about where "energy" and "matter" came to exist.


I'll make it easy for you.............



Can you definitvely say where, when and how our world and all the cellular life that inhabits our world came to exist?

Please attempt to separate fact from fart.


LOL

[braces4impact]

Greer why do you go around and around in circles with someone who has obviously abandoned their mind to such utter superstition?

[chillbilly]

He's like you......he can't help himself.

[braces4impact]

Well sometimes it is fun to shoot fish in a barrel.

[chillbilly]

Yep. And you and greer are my 2 favorite targets.

[rob10]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Yep. And you and greer are my 2 favorite targets. GET A LIFE!! :eek:

[chillbilly]

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/5841/jlmo5.jpg


Hillary's the next man to be hugged by GWB

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

These theories are interrelated.
Obviously, we cannot understand evolutionary processes that involve cellular life forms until we can separate fact from fiction as it pertains to how these life forms originated.Sure we can..........and do.

More scientific illiteracy by chilly.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

Thanks, nutty professor. I'll decline the lesson in futility from someone who can't teach themselves the definition of evidence. LOLYour choice Tonto.






Some noteworthy substance is required when attempting to illustrate a theory or impart some knowledge.Even more critical to this process is a sentient mind able to receive, process and retain this information.

This is where your mind fails and the process breaks down.






Stick with your day job as a heating and air stiff.I can do both.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
That's a laugher. Where is this detailed explanation YOU have provided to support your beliefs?Beliefs? What beliefs? I have no beliefs.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

Sigh..

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo


I have read the article. What does it have to do with you posting your views about where "energy" and "matter" came to exist.In the article. Maybe glasses would help.



'll make it easy for you.............Be much better if you made it easy for yourself. You exhibit little or no higher cognitive function.




definitvely say where, when and how our world and all the cellular life that inhabits our world came to exist?

Please attempt to separate fact from fart.

Our world
Where: 3rd planet from the sun.
When: 4.55 BYA
How: Coalesced from space debris


Cellular life:
Where: The Earth
When: 3.45 BYA
How: Chemical reactions

[geerair]

Originally posted by braces4impact
Greer why do you go around and around in circles with someone who has obviously abandoned their mind to such utter superstition?Well, it is fine entertainment watching chilly flail around and make a fool of himself.

[geerair]

Originally posted by braces4impact
Well sometimes it is fun to shoot fish in a barrel. Yeah, that is part of it. Although chilly will shoot himself from time to time and that is priceless.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Yep. And you and greer are my 2 favorite targets. Better get those glasses, your foot will thank you for it.